The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-05-21 REGULAR TOWN BQARD MEETING MAY 21, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Stephen Borgos Councilman Ronald Montesi Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN ATTORNEY Paul Dusek MEMBERS ABSENT _ Councilman George Kurosaka Councilman Marilyn Potenza TOWN OFFICIALS Kathleen Kathe, Paul Naylor, Dave IIatin PRESS G.F. Post Star, Channel 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BORGOS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET/FREDERICK HATHAWAY/OPENED 7:40 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-Asked if this has been advertised? Town Clerk-Yes. Supervisor Borgos-If there anyone here to speak for or against this proposal? Attorney Del Mulder-I have submitted the application, if you like I can outline it very briefly? Supervisor Borgos-Just briefly to accommodate those in the audience who are not aware of it. Attorney Mulder-This is an application that pertains to property that I've designated as Southwest Traders property Route 9, at the border of the Town of Rueensbury and the Town of Lake George. This is an application or request for a permit to operate a Transient Merchant Market, the application is for a permit of five carts, if you will for sales purposes. Supervisor Borgos-For the benefit for those who are here, this application falls under the so called old regulations which are about to be changed tonight which become the new regulations so your application was processed in the "old period"? Attorney Mulder-Yes. Supervisor Borgos-Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against this proposal from the general public? Any Board member who has a question? Councilman Monahan-I have a question Steve. Mr. Mulder, the size of these vendors that we are going to be having how big will they be? Attorney Mulder-They could run 20 to 30 feet. Councilman Monahan-20 to 30 feet square? — Attorney Mulder-Yes ma'am. Councilman Monahan-I take that this drawing we have is not to scale? Attorney Mulder-No ma'am. Councilman Monahan-U.S. Route 9 dimensions, are we showing paved dimensions, are we showing the amount of land that is a N.Y. State right-of-way under U.S. Route 9? Attorney Mulder-The right-of-way for U.S. Route 9, is the paved area of U.S. Route 9. The parking that is designated between U.S. Route 9, and the property owned by Mr. Hathaway, shows on the diagram as lands of Frederick and Henrietta Hathaway that's all paved parking area. Councilman Monahan-All right, but I'm going between the Crystal Shop, the Log Cabin, the Western Store, and U.S. Route 9, there is parking designated in there. Is any of that parking so designated on property owned by the State of New York? Atorney Mulder-I'm not sure if it is or not. All I know is that it's been approved by the State f New York and they have put in the little islands to control the traffic. Councilman Monahan-That isn't my question. My question is, any of the parking that is to be used for the transient merchant parking is any of that parking shown on lands owned by the State of New York? Attorney Mulder-I'm not sure of your question. Supervisor Borgos-Do you mean on the west side of Route 9? Councilman Monahan-I mean right there whatever direction Steve, you know me and directions. Supervisor Borgos-I think, Mrs. Monahan means across the road the west side of Route 9, between there and the embankment of where the Northway is. Councilman Monahan-No. Between where the vendors are going to be the parking between there and the road. I'm asking if any of this parking area is actually on area owned by the State of New York as part of Route 9. Attorney Mulder-Not to our knowledge. It's all within the barriers that are all there. Councilman Monahan-That has no bearing on it. Then Mr. Mulder, I would like to know the distance of the parking, the depth of the parking shown between these vendor carts and the boundary.of U.S. Route 9? There are no dimensions on this map for that. kttorney Mulder-I don't know exactly what the dimensions are, but I do know that there is nough space for two rows of cars being parked there length wise between U.S. Route 9, and --he property. Councilman Monahan-When you say length wise are you talking about being perpendicular to the building? Attorney Mulder-Yes, with a travel area in-between. Councilman Monahan-I would assume that is not true up in the area where it says Western Store? Attorney Mulder-It's true up there as well mainly because the buildings are set further back from the property line. Keep in mind that. . .outline the perimeter is to scale the buildings we just drew on here and we. . . have them closer to the front line than they actually are. Councilman Monahan-I guess maybe this is the root to my question because I think, I'm looking at the survey map here. Attorney Mulder-With the perimeter over it. Councilman Monahan-The perimeter yes. If that's the perimeter of Mr. Hathaway's property then where your showing the parking looks to me like it belongs to New York State. .ttorney Mulder-That's an error in the drawing. There is parking on the Hathaway property. —Councilman Monahan-I realize there is in back. Attorney Mulder-No, in front of the property. There is parking on the Hathaway property in front just how far it goes before we get to U.S. Route 9, I'm not sure that's put in at the proper spot that I don't know. Councilman Montesi-It is conceivable that part of your parking lot beyond the barrier as you enter your driveway there is a barrier curve, it is possible where your parking lot is paved it could be a New Xork State right-of-way. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is beyond the barrier so what we look at is your parking lot; I guess Mrs. Monahan is saying, is partially part of the right-of-way. Just as in front of everyone's house in a subdivision the road is 50 feet wide and is dedicated to the Town, you know whether we go up on the lawn or not is not pertinent we pave the road 24 feet wide so there is enough feet on each side of the road that the Town owns it's your lawn so to speak. Attorney Mulder-It could be, I'm not sure. Councilman Monahan-My point is Ron, because it's not been our policy to take into consideration that parking area which is not owned by the owner. Councilman Montesi-That would be a hard. . .to live with. Councilman Monahan-I remember we had that same situation before on Route 9 in another area and that was part of the problems that they we're parking in the State right-of-way and that was part of the problem that they could not provide enough parking of their own. Mr. Hathaway-Owner of the property. Now this is come up this year for the first time we have always had vendors there in trie past, but this year for some reason there seems to be a problem about getting some type of permit we have never had a problem we don't have a parking problem. For one thing, I Dave probably over 250 running feet on Route 9 north of that location in the Town of Lake George it's all parking also which we are not using for transient vendors. Supervisor Borgos-I think that's part of the problem the vast majority of the buildings up there are in the Town of Lake George your right on the Town line is that correct? Mr. Hathaway-I am on both lines. The majority of the buildings are in the Town of Queensbury. Supervisor Borgos-The Tepee is in the Town of Lake George. Mr. Hathaway-The Tepee is Lake George, everything south of there right now is considered the Town of Queensbury. Supervisor Borgos-Are you sure? Mr. Hathaway-Yes sir. Supervisor Borgos-Okay. That surprises me I didn't think our 'Down line went up quit that far. Mr. Hathaway-Then your getting a lot of taxes from me that you shouldn't be getting. Supervisor Borgos-Appreciate that. Councilman Monahan-Actually what we're looking at we should be considering is not this diagram that I'm looking at, but from the Tepee down is where were going to be giving the permits. Supervisor Borgos-There south. Mr. Hathaway-That's the only place where you will be issuing a permit. Councilman Monahan-A little north of what you have marked a log cabin, a crystal shop, and silver building is the only area that we are concerned with? Mr. Hathaway-Yes ma'am. Councilman Monahan-Okay. I'm glad you mentioned that Steve. Supervisor Borgos-I did recall seeing that marked on there. Mr. Hathaway-The other thing, is it Ms. or Mrs. Monahan? Councilman Monahan-Mrs. Mr. Hathaway-I don't know how familiar you are with the property, but I have the road all the way behind that property. Councilman Monahan-I know that you have parking out in back. Mr. Hathaway-So we certainly have plenty of parking off that particular area. It is not our intention to block any of the egress or exists or whatever on that property. Councilman Monahan-This is my one concern because I know sometimes with these types of markets we have.ended up with a traffic hazard because of the way the parking has been done. Mr. Hathaway-The other thing that we do and we have done in the past all of those vendors will face in towards the buildings we do not want any people on that highway that's for sure. We certainly do not want to cause a traffic jam there we just trying to give some other people an opportunity to make a few dollars there. Thank you. Supervisor Borgos-Thank you. Is there anything else you wish to say? Anyone else from the audience for or against? Any other Town Board questions? Hearing none and seeing no hands will declare this public hearing closed and ask the Board if they wish to take action now on the resolution approving the transient merchant license for Mr. Hathaway. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:49 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE FOR MR. FREDERICK HATHAWAY, OF SOUTHWEST TRADERS RESOLUTION NO. 298, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, Mr. Frederick Hathaway, of Southwest Traders, has made application to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a license to operate a transient merchant and/or 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 Law, remain in effect until one (1) year from the date of issuance, will be personal to the applicant and not assignable, may thereafter be renewed upon payment of the annual license fee without hearing, and may contain such like reasonable requirements as the Town Board shall determine, and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the license application on May 21, 1990, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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. Adequacy 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. Frederick Hathaway, of Southwest Traders, allowing him to operate a transient merchant and/or solicitor market at Southwest Traders, 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 Laws 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 Law no. 3 of 1985. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Borgos-Asked if the lice s under the old Transient Merchant Law will be grandfathered or will they have to follow the new law? Attorney Dusek-Explained that anyone who has a transient merchant license for a market currently in effect would be grandfathered to the extent that they would be allowed to continue with that license until it expires. Upon expiration they would not be entitled to a renewal under the old law they would then have to make application under the new law. Anybody who applies under this law when it comes time for renewal does not have to go through the full procedure if the Board feels that there has been no change of circumstances. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW NO. 4, 1990 PROVIDING FOR THE DEDICATION OF PARKS OR RECREATION AREAS OR A PAYMENT OF A SUM IN LIEU THEREOF AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 8:15 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-Since the last public hearing as I started to mention before, we had made some changes in the language which would provide for small subdivisions four lots or less in which there was an existing principal dwelling unit. You would not have to pay four times $500.00, but rather four minus one or three minus one whatever the number of units is minus one times $500.00. To show that there was already a burden on the recreational needs of the community prior to the subdivision so whatever the new number of lots is minus one would be used to estimate the fee that change was made on the basis of information presented to us at the last public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against this now in it's new form. Jim Martin-Farm to Market Road, I was here for the last meeting. I just wanted to say that I am for the change, I just wanted to clarify what you said Steve about it. It wouldn't have to be a dwelling unit on the lot necessarily it's just, I've got a copy of what is proposed here, it's just the subdivision relating to vacant land right? Supervisor Borgos-I think your right. I think we made the change that said anything under --- four lots. Attorney Dusek-It's one lot. . . Supervisor Borgos-It's one lot less. We started with the lot that we were dealing with the situation in which there was for instance, an old farm house and that parcel was broken up, I think your right we did change it to anything four lots or less. Jim Martin-Okay. I just wanted to state that I'm in favor of this. Supervisor Borgos-Anyone else who wishes to speak for or against? Any Board member with any comments? Councilman Montesi-Paul, I would like to ask you your opinion. I am in receipt of a letter from Lee York, our Senior Planner. She raises a couple of issues basically this is what she is saying. After reviewing the Local Law Providing for Dedication of Parking and Recreation Areas for Payment in Lieu therefore, I feel that there are some areas that may require clarification to achieve the purpose and proper information of this law. The Planning Department collects the fees so it would be helpful if this is written so that the implementation is not by interpretation. One question she asked; the Zoning Administrator has determined that if a garage or structure usually considered to be an accessory structure is the only building on the lot is it the principal building, that's one question she is asking. If the intent of the legislation is to exempt individuals from paying recreation fees twice would it be better to use Definition 84, namely dwelling units. Dwelling unit, means the building or portion thereof providing for complete housekeeping facilities for one family, that's just a question, I guess it's a good clarification question. Should it be stipulated that the definition does not include seasonal dwelling units since we have had lots with camps on them which have been subdivided, that's another question. With regard to subdivision of four lots or less an individual has a house on one lot and is creating a four lot subdivision do they get exemption for one lot or two. Lastly, if a person planning a two lot subdivision of 1 acre parcel and one 20 acre parcel do we seek an exemption for one lot, how can I identify the lot which receives the exemption? There are a few other questions here too, but I just think perhaps some of her comments ought to be part of the record and just briefly do you think that there is enough lack of interpretation on their part they have to implement this that we shouldn't consider that now or are they minor changes that will be made? , Attorney Dusek-I guess, if I may make a few comments. Let me just start with the procedural aspects that the Board is aware of. As the Board knows this is the second public hearing on a Local Law, there are three Board members present tonight if there were to be any revisions made in the Local Law tonight it could not be passed tonight, not because you may or may not need a public hearing which that's your decision to make obviously whether they are minor or major changes. But, in addition to that if changes are made and the law has not been before the Board for a period of seven days the law requires that it be passed by 2/3rds vote of the Board which, of course, you can't have tonight because you need four for that even though 2/3rds in technically 3.3. people you need that extra person to make 2/3rds under the law. om a matter of procedural standpoint if the law does not get passed as it is tonight it cannot passed. In addressing the comments raised specifically maybe taking them in reverse order far as the first comment of how do you identify the lot that gets the exception, my position in that regard is that is doesn't matter. The reason it doesn't matter is because there is two criteria in order to qualify for the exemption; (1) is that the subdivision has never been subdivided before, (2) that it is under four lots. Once it's been the first time around and they get the exemption the second time up to bat if they are subdividing and it's been a previously subdivided parcel it doesn't matter because they don't get the exemption and all lots will have to pay unless they're exempt because of the accessible dwelling business. So as far as that comment is concerned, I don't think there is any need for concern, I don't think there is any ambiguity we can eliminate that one safely. Actually I'll take the next two together or actually the next one the four lot subdivision resulting in two exemptions. The answer to that question is yes it is possible under the way it's structured now for a subdivision coming to the Planning Board under four lots and never having been previously subdivided in that particular case it is possible that a person could qualify for two exemptions. They could qualify for the exemption of the minus one lot by virtue of this new exemption that was written in and if they had a dwelling on the premises they may also qualify for that exemption so it's possible that a four lot subdivision could in essence qualify for two exemptions because of the way the law is structured. There is a way to get around that if the Board does not want that result it would mean adding a sentence in that would say something to the effect that if they get one exemption they don't get the other and that could be added to the law. Councilman Montesi-Is that a minor change? Attorney Dusek-That's a Board judgement call, I think you could certainly think about it what ould the impact be overall if you made that addition. If you feel it's a minor change you uld probably have ahead and do it without a public hearing. Councilman Montesi-I think the intent of what this Board has been trying to do all five of us was to reduce the burden on the small subdividers so that the one lot exemption would hold it certainly wasn't to create a two lot exemption. I think the intent was to provide that kind of lease of burden. Supervisor Borgos-Are you saying that if we choose to make that change tonight we could not make that change? Attorney Dusek-That's correct, you would need the 2/3rds majority vote at that point. Councilman Monahan-So you don't think it's just a minor change? Attorney Dusek-It could be a minor change if the Board. . . There are two things operating here; (1) The public hearing which we're saying if you considered it a minor you don't have to worry about that. But, there is another section of the law that says; the final version of the Local Law has to be before the Board members seven (7) days in advance unless two things happen. (1) The Supervisor issues a message of necessity, (2) You get 2/3rds vote of the Board though which that you can't have because there is not enough Board members. Councilman Monahan-So you couldn't add a sentence for clarification like only one exemption is permitted for subdivision? torney Dusek-If you had a full Board you could. -,-,uuncilman Monahan-But, right now we can't? Attorney Dusek-Right. Councilman Monahan-Now, suppose we did this at a meeting when we got all five of us there would we have to have another public hearing because we didn't do it tonight, do you know what I'm trying to say could we do this at a future time? Attorney Dusek-Sure. Councilman Monahan-Just clarify it without another public hearing. Attorney Dusek-You could if you feel that it's a minor change and the public hearing is not necessary and I think that this lies within the discretion of the Board. Councilman Monahan-The other question is that you have to look at the probability of having a four lot subdivision it would fall under the criteria that we're talking about there were times when that was probable. Councilman Monahan-But, I think it's something that should be cleared up sooner or later. Attorney Dusek-Going backwards and answering the last matter that was passed dealing with the seasonal dwelling unit and whether the term "dwelling unit" should have been used instead of the word "principal building". First of all, to answer the question let me say yes. I think "dwelling unit" would probably be a better term to use under the circumstances especially in light of the fact that the Zoning Administrator as indicated here if this is correct they have determined that a garage could be a principal building which I have not been aware of it certainly could be if that interpretation is there certainly dwelling unit would be a better word to use. The only thing in this regard, I would draw to the Board's attention is the fact that this is something that certainly would have been known of at the first public hearing I'm a little surprise that it's being brought up now by Mrs. York, but certainly I think the point is well taken. Councilman Monahan-Sometimes when we reread things a several times it hits you. What about the seasonal dwelling unit? Attorney Dusek-Once again, if your putting in the "dwelling unit" you could just simply say that it would include seasonal dwellings if that was the Board's choice, but that's a judgement call on the part of the Board whether you want to allow that exemption of seasonal dwellings. Councilman Monahan-Apparently we have a clarification that could be done in the future. Councilman Montesi-There is one last sentence Paul, that I just want to run by you. It says; shouldn't the Legislation state the reasoning behind the exemptions. In the past Mr. Hansen, who is the Recreational Director, and 1, 1 being Lee York have has numerous discussions with subdividers regarding the intent of the Recreation Fee Law. Therefore, it would seem whomever determines what amount should be charged for a subdivision should be able to show the public the intent of any exemptions. Isn't this law being rewritten because the intent was to help the family or the group of people that have one large parcel and they are only dividing it in half or gifting some property to their children or relatives. Attorney Dusek-I guess my reaction to that statement is exactly, I guess somewhat what your saying. I believe that this was discussed at the last meeting and I recall Councilman Kurosaka at that time I think making a comment to the effect that he is kind of referring back to when we had minor and major subdivisions and the fact that four lot subdivisions in essences used to qualify for these types of exemptions because they never had come before the Board so they were never picked up for any kind of recreational fee at least if I understood the jest of what he was getting at. I think the public hearing plus the comments that were made at the last meeting plus the comments you just made yourself certainly would indicate what the intent of the Board was in terms of why your doing what your doing. I don't think it's necessary have to it actually inserted in the Local Law some place. Councilman Monahan-So since we've shown the intent in the discussion it really is not necessary to put it in as part of the ordinance because that's always there that you can go back too and show it through the discussion if anybody ever questions why we did it? Attorney Dusek-I believe you could. When I draft these Local Laws for you at the time I originally draft the first Local Law, I try to give a little bit of legislative history it's not required, but I try to put it in there just for the purpose of establishing a history and a little bit of the intent for the convenience for whomever is looking at the law. On the other hand, when you go through and make a change to be quite honest with you it's never been my practice to really go back and try to justify that particular change because I feel it's in the law itself because we're going in and fine tuning the law and the record will speak for itself as to why that was done. Supervisor Borgos-1 would propose that we would move forward with the law the way it is having gone through now two public hearing in addition to a lot of other discussions. If we want to make some changes we can either try to make them the next time we have a full Board or we can make them as we go through again with the other changes that have to be made in these same regulations that will be coming along with that within the next few weeks. I don't think it's a critical issue I like to see us at least get this much and take care of some outstanding issues that have been with us for nine months or more. Councilman Monahan-Paul, you probably told us this before, but I'm going to ask you because it's gone out of my mind. Why do we sometimes refer to accessible lots and sometimes to accessible dwelling units? Attorney Dusek-The reason is that the Local Law has been divided up Assessment of Recreation Fees into three different circumstances; (1) Multifamily dwellings, in cases where you have apartment complexes essentially. (2) Where you have subdivisions, (3) Where you have Planned Unit Developments. In the cases of subdivisions and planned unit developments for the most part usually your going to get a lot situation your not going to have a dwelling the term "accessible lot" is used in those situations. Where you have multifamily dwellings and in some instances where you have PUD's that established multifamily dwellings there isn't a lot criteria used so the term "accessible dwelling units" was used. Depending upon what section of the " law your in whether your reading about multifamily dwellings or subdivisions that will determine what term is used. They're pretty close in what their purpose is. Councilman Monahan-I thought maybe that was why, but I wanted to make sure. Section 7, under (a), I guess I know why you did this; of at least 1,000 sq. ft. per lot that's for subdivision not for dwelling unit? Attorney Dusek-That was taken from the old Local Law that number. Councilman Monahan-I was just trying to go through these and I wanted to make sure I was trapping it right. On Page 7, Section 8, (a) of at least 1,000 sq. ft. per law. Attorney Dusek-That should read per lot. Councilman Monahan-I wasn't sure. Attorney Dusek-That is a typing error that should read lot. Supervisor Borgos-Any other comments from the Board? Any other comments from the general public? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:20 P.M. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 4, 1990, ENTITLED, A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR THE DEDICATION OF PARKS OR RECREATION AREAS OR A PAYMENT OF A SUM IN LIEU THEREOF AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 299, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the `Iown of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law Providing for the Dedication of Parks or Recreation Areas or a Payment of a Sum in Lieu Thereof as a Condition Precedent to Site Plan, Subdivision or Planned Unit Development Approval," and WHEREAS, a copy of the said proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, on May 7th, 1990, and May 21, 1990, public hearings with regard to this Local Law were duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed "Local Law Providing for the Dedication of Parks or Recreation Areas of a Sum in Lieu Thereof as a Condition Precedent to Site Plan, Subdivision or Planned Unit Development Approval," to be known as Local Law Number 4, 1990, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza PUBLIC HEARING TRANSIENT MERCHANT 8:24 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-Has this been properly advertised? Town Clerk-Yes it has. Supervisor Borgos-Anyone who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about this proposal? Pliney Tucker-Ward 4, Queensbury. This is to do with solicitors, who does it cover? Supervisor Borgos-We have definitions. A "Solicitor",: is a person, corporation, partnership, association or any other organization doing business through the act of selling, offering for sale, soliciting orders for future sales, or demonstrating or making estimates of services, merchandise, works of art, or goods of any kind, meats, seafood, vegetables or fruit by going from house to house, and not by remaining stationary in any private or public place or motor place vehicle for the purpose of making or soliciting sales or demonstrating or making estimates of services to the general public. Essentially people that go from door to door or move from place to place, not someone who sets up in a parking lot. Mr. Tucker-My question is and this is kind of personal, my wife had this situation. We had signs in front of our house for "solicitors", comes a knock on the door and it happened to be one of the area churches. Supervisor Borgos-They're exempt. They are non-profit, there are a whole section on excemptions Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts. Mr. Tucker-I don't mind the Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts, , nd Little League. Supervisor Borgos-Those people would be exempt from this law, however, you may ask them to leave your property as you may ask anyone to leave your property. Mr. Tucker-This was a situation she asked her to leave and the lady said she had the right to _ be there. Supervisor Borgos-911, sheriff will come and escort the people from your property. Mr. 'fucker-Thank you. Councilman Montesi-One of the reasons we wrote this law to assure the Town of Queensbury and Warren County that we are accepting and getting our fair share of sales tax revenue. Supervisor Borgos-We're anxious to get our fair share of sales tax revenue, we're also intending to protect the public as best we can without playing big brother. We want to be sure if we deal with a door to door peddler that a person has come in and has identified himself, herself, has paid the fee, has complied with all the other regulations here so if you buy something there is a little bit of recourse. Councilman Montesi-Also protecting the establish businesses that are here that are presently paying sales tax and property tax to the Town of Queensbury and deserve the right to make sure that someone coming in is a transient or solicitor pays the burden of doing business in our community. Fred Hathaway-Southwest Traders. Just from the comment here, we are trying to change this law that's on the books today is that what we're trying to get too? Supervisor Borgos-We're making several changes we have been working on this for months, and months, and months. The biggest change in my mind is the very firm distinction between a solictor and a transient merchant. Before there was some confusion people claimed that they were solicitors and paid $25.00 for the year and setup in a parking lot, but really it was intended that they be transient merchant and pay $500.00 per day there is quite a difference. A transient merchant markets are different yes, because there is an annual fee of $1,000.00 which covers everbody that's in your market. Mr. Hathaway-How do we treat the special events that come into the Town? I think that's what most of the people like myself that are here are interested in. Like right now with Americade, I certainly do not need this permit to run all year, 1 don't intend to have five people all year long. But, by the same token during this particular special event I would like to see myself make some money, but I certainly would like to see our Town make some money. In other areas, Daytona Beach is one of the greatest in the country those merchants are charged a fee and they must sell a product that is related to the event. Once they have a license they can approach someope who has space available for them and pay that person a fee if that's the deal that is made between the two people. Supervisor Borgos-I hear where your're coming from. We would have a problem with that because we often have 5, 10, or 15 different events in the Town at anyone time so for us to try to determine whether this is related to one event or more events could be a real problem. The other part of the problem is and your exactly right this is one of the things that has pushed us into finally doing this is that people follow events people come in truck, vans, and all kinds of things that just want to setup make a fast buck and take off we have to regulate that kind of operation, again for the safety of people doing business and also protect the businessman who are here year round paying all the taxes. Ar. Hathaway-I whole heartly agree with you, however, I also feel that if we have to take license for a year we're opening the doors for flea markets. Supervisor Borgos-The way the regulation is written you would have 14 days of operation, right? Attorney Dusek-Right. Supervisor Borgos-During that one year period. You couldn't go 365 days, you couldn't go every weekend, 14 total days during the year. Mr. Hathaway-This is the new regulation? Supervisor Borgos-The new regulation. Mr. Hathaway-Thank you very much. Supervisor Borgos-Your welcome. Councilman Montesi-There was a time in the Town of Queensbury where along Quaker Road you would see a truck from South Carolina pull up open it's doors and put out some recliners and sell them for a $100.00 a piece, no guarantees, no sales tax, no property tax. The guy on Quaker Road with the furniture store is screaming bloody murder that he is paying property tax, he is doing all the things right, and how are we protecting his rights. I think that's what we are trying to address in one segment of this law and protect the rights of the established businessman here and not say that a transient merchant or solictor is not professional, but he just has to abide by our rules. Supervisor Borgos-Any other comments? If not will call this hearing to a close. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:22 P.M. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 5, 1990 REGULATING TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, SOLICITORS, PEDDLERS, AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS AND/OR SOLICITORS MARKETS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK RESOLUTION NO. 300, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a local law to regulate transient merchants, seasonal transient merchants, solicitors, peddlers, and transient merchants and/or solicitors markets in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law to Regulate Transient Merchants, Solicitors, Peddlers, and Transient Merchants and/or Solicitors Markets in the Town of Queensbury, New York" has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said local law also having been previously given to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, on May 21, 1990, a public hearing with regard to this local law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to regulate Transient Merchants, Solicitors, Peddlers, and Transient Merchants and/or Solicitors Markets in the Town of Queensbury, New York, to be known as Local Law Number 5, 1990, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 8:23 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-Has this been properly advertised? Town Clerk-Yes it has been. Supervisor Borgos-This is the general exemption from all zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations for property constituting less than 100 acres to be purchased by the Town of Rueensbury. The background of this is that we found that under the regulations that currently exist if the Town for instance, wants to purchase z acre of property or 4 acres of property for a new water tank site as we are attempting to do on West Mountain Road or another parcel a couple acres here or there we would have to go through the entire subdivision regulations we wouldn't, but the people selling the property and we don't think that it is in the public interest. A lot of people have to go through regulations anyway don't think that there in the public interest. In any event, certainly the Town will eventually be making the decisions so it seems kind of doing things in twice as difficult a fashion if we have the Town go through this everytime. The purpose the of the meeting is to hear the opinion of the public related to this. Councilman Montesi-As Chairman of the Water Committee, I've been hit with this 3 times so I'm sympathetic to it. We are in the process of purchasing an access to one of our water tanks and that would require maybe the Town or the friendly neighbor who is selling us the acre or Z acre of land with this access to file a complete subdivision. We are in the process of expanding the Water Treatment Plant making the plans for it and our neighbor next door granted us a 50 foot parcel that we needed to straighten out a roadway that would require another subdivision. Lastly, Niagara Mohawk owns most of the property in and about our Water Treatment Plant our proposed expansion with looking at perhaps buying some land from Nimo, that again would require a complete subdivision review. I think as Steve points outs it's in the interest of the taxpayers of the Town for some degree of expediency to have some flexibility on that. I know some of the Attorney's, friends of mine have said that what your saying is; do what I say not as I do or something to that effect. I guess I have a valid comment, but my concern is that it's cost effective for the taxpayers to be able to have this flexbility as a Town Board member and I certainly appreciate it as the Chairman of the Water Commission. Councilman Monahan-I've heard that comment too, Ron. Another comment when you go through the whole procedure there are public hearings so people are aware of when the Town is going to become their neighbor, but perhaps we will be more careful to let people know if we are considering buying a piece of property so if they don't want us to be their neighbor we can get some feedback from them. Supervisor Borgos-1111 check with our Attorney, but I believe that is required by law. Attorney Dusek-Just to bring to the Board's attention a couple of points. One, is if your acquiring land at least through the Water Department or any of the districts that you're going to go through a public hearing. Whereas, if your acquiring land for general Town purposes there is also the permissive referendum so each time there is some sort of public notice that gets out that the Town is about to do something of that nature. The other thing is that with reference to the Town as far as complying with or not having to do all of the steps that the private individual does just a couple of observations. First of all, the amendment to the Ordinance provides that in no event will you cause the remaining parcel to become in violation of area or setback requirements so that your still goveren by . The other thing is that it's limited to 100 acres maximum the exemption dies if the contract does not go through so there is no chance that there would be any possibility of the Town not goin ahead, yet the individual's still qualifying. — 3�3 wIeY Finally, the Town Board, of course, as it is very custom to doing frequently uses it's Planning Department in any event to assist in these types of reviews of this projects. I think that the Town is certainly going to be amply covered and it's really discounting one duplicate procedure I think. Councilman Montesi-And the public is going to be duly covered. Attorney Dusek-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Paul, just a question as I look through this. Were any of this land, we were going to acquire within the A.P.A. we would still have to comply with all the A.P.A. regulations? Attorney Dusek-Yes. Supervisor Borgos-Any other comments about this public hearing? Hearing none will call this hearing to a close. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:29 P.M. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 301, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza SEWER VARIANCE ANNE M. PARROTT 8:30 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-I'll ask Mr. Hatin perhaps to discuss briefly what this request is. We all read it, but for the benefit of the public. Dave Hatin-Director of Building and Codes Enforcement. I don't remember the exact distances, but there is a separation distance between the well and the seepage pit that is going to be placed on the property. I think it's 69 feet, what she is asking for is 150 feet. Supervisor Borgos-1'm not too concerned about the numbers because I've read it and I'm comfortable with it. Is there anyone else that has a concern? Mr. Hatin-It would be 75 feet in lieu of the 150 feet. Councilman Monahan-It's mandated that it be 150 feet from a seepage pit to a well? Mr. Hatin-Correct. Councilman Monahan-Why is it 150 feet or is that for only certain circumstances? Mr. Hatin-It's in our 1982 Ordinance so I'm assuming it was 1982 or pre-1982. We also have a letter from the Department of Health approving this. Supervisor Borgos-Do you have a comment whether you're in favor of this or opposed to this? Mr. Hatin-You know my opinion on this, this is your job. Supervisor Borgos-Your our Building and Code Enforcement person. Mr. Hatin-I think you said it best Steve. They can't meet present conditions do you tell them they can't build on this lot. Department of Health said they have no problem with it, I think you rely on them. Supervisor Borgos-We normally rely on them unless we have compelling reasons not to. Anyone else from the public. Councilman Monahan-Steve, the one thing we don't know is what the distance is from all the neighbors. " Mr. Hatin-I believe you have a site plan in front of you Betty. (Discussion among Board members and Anne Parrott. Pointed out to Board members the distances between neighbors) Supervisor Borgos-I notice that there are a couple of the neighbors here. Do any of the neighbors have objections, if so would you come forward and state your name and address. The neighbors have indicated that they do not have objections. Mr. Hillis-The lots are only 50 ft. by 100 ft. in the first place. Supervisor Borgos-There are no problems that you are aware of? Mr. Hillis-No. Supervisor Borgos-Anyone else who wishes to speak for or against or ask any questions? Seeing no hands hearing no voices will call that public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:35 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST OF ANNE M. PARROTT RESOLUTION NO. 3, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, Anne M. Parrott previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more specifically, those requiring that there be a 150 foot separation between a seepage pit and any well and a 100 foot separation between a seepage pit and a water course, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on May 21, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants a variance to Anne M. Parrott, allowing a 75 foot separation between the seepage pit and well, and a 90 foot separation between the said seepage pit and the Hudson River, and a. that there are special circumstances or conditions which justify allowing the 75' separation between the seepage pit and well and a 90' separation between the seepage pit and the Hudson River in that the lot size is too small to accommodate the respective 150' and 100' distances required, and b. that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury. c. that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant, and d. that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of health. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza SEWER VARIANCE RICHARD AND KATHLEEN MEATH 8:32 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-I111 ask the clerk if this has been properly advertised? Town Clerk-Yes it has. Supervisor Borgos-Anyone here to speak for or against or ask questions about this public hearing? Richard Meath-property owner. I don't know if you want a brief statement. We need a variance from the sewage setback requirements so that we can construct an addition on our house. It will be 13 feet from the existing leach line rather than the required 20 feet. Supervisor Borgos-Mr. Hatin, have you visited this site? Mr. Hatin-I haven't visited the site. Supervisor Borgos-Would you like to comment about this, please. Mr. liatin-What you have is an existing leach line that has functioned for several years. The Meaths would not like to move that they would like to leave it there to construct an addition. I was just looking at the setback, I thought it was 18 feet. Mr. Meath-13 feet. Mr. Hatin-The Department of Health has approved this. Councilman Montesi-I think the original one said 13 feet. Mr. Meath-The map which I believe you have says 13 feet from the propose addition to the existing leach line. This is the map which the Health Department had when they approved it. (tape turned) Attorney Dusek-It was advertised as 18 feet instead of 13 feet. Supervisor Borgos-That would have no impact on any neighbors. Mr. Meath-The only people it would have any effect on is me. Councilman Montesi-It's a separation from your foundation line not a well. Mr. Meath-It's an existing leach line that has no different impact on any surrounding properties or anything else. Attorney Dusek-I think that if the Board under the circumstances if you feel that you have the party that would be most effective which you do tonight I think you can waive that requirement and not have to re-advertise. Supervisor Borgos-Any further comments from anyone? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:39 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST OF RICHARD V. MEATH AND KATHLEEN H. MEATH RESOLUTION NO. 4, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, Richard V. Meath and Kathleen H. Meath previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more specifically, those requiring that there be a 20 foot separation between the absorption field and the dwelling, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on May 7, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants a variance to Richard V. Meath and Kathleen H. Meath; allowing a 13' separation between the absorption field and 5)kD the dwelling, and a. that there are special circumstances or conditions which justify allowing the 13' separation between the absorption field and the dwelling in that the lot size is too small to accommodate the 20' distance required, and b. that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury. c. that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant, and d. that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza SEWER VARIANCE SUSSE CHALET 8:40 P.M. Supervisor Borgos-Has this been advertised properly? Town Clerk-Yes it has. Mr. Ray Irish-Engineer, working for the Susse Chalet. The reason for the variance is the requirement that you have for seepage pits that would not be constructed on the paved areas. We don't have sufficient room outside of the paved areas because of the separation distance requirements from storm drainage facilities. In addition they have existing leach pits under paved areas and to the best of my knowledge they have pumped for many years. Supervisor Borgos-For the benefit of the public we've run into this situation many, many times — in the last two years. Very often in commercial operations we have to my knowledge in all cases approved those provided that their plans for traffic caps and all those other good things to make sure nobody sinks down in. Councilman Monahan-That's what I was wondering because this doesn't state that there is, I was wondering if there are. Supervisor Borgos-I believe that is an almost automatic requirement. Mr. Irish-All the facilities are designed for highway loads. Supervisor Borgos-Any other comments or questions from members of the public? Any questions or comments from members of the Board? Councilman Montesi-These are all precast? Mr. Irish-Precast for H-20 highway load. Supervisor Borgos-Any further comments? hearing none will close that public hearing. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST OF THE SUSSE CHALET RESOLUTION NO. 5, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Susse Chalet previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more specifically those prohibiting components of a leaching facility from being located under driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject to heavy loading, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on May 21, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants a variance to The Susse Chalet, allowing a component of a leaching facility to be placed under a paved parking area on the property, and a. that there are special circumstances or conditions which justify allowing a component of a leaching facility to be placed under a paved parking area in that no other alternative is possible which permits compliance with the separation distance requirements of the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance, and b. that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury. c. that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant, and d. that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza SEWER VARIANCE ANTHONY RUSSO 8:42 P.M. s_ Supervisor Borgos-I'll ask the clerk if this has been advertised? Town Clerk-Yes it has. Supprvisor Borgos-Anyone here to speak for or against the sewer variance request for Anthony Russo. Victor Clinqulno-Architect for the project. We're asking for a variance from the section relative to seepage pits under parking. I believe our site plan indicates that the overall layout of the site, the topography, space required proves a hardship and there really is no other practical method. Supervisor Borgos-Are there any questions from the Board? Any comments from anyone in the audience? Councilman Monahan-I guess again, I want to ask what precautions are being taken? This is on a residence I believe. Mr. Clinqulno-It's for a new facility the Lake George "Q" Club. We're cautious in taking that, all facilities will be designed in accordance with traffic loading it was duly noted on all of our drawings submitted to the Planning Board. Councilman Montesi-Aside from the actual fact that has been placed on the parking lot, a big part of the burden rest with the owner because in a failure you loose a lot of business because one, your parking lot is going to get torn up there is some inconvenience involved in this, but it's a risk that you have to run. We're aware of that and if there are no other alternatives that burden really rests with the owner assuming that. Mr. Clinqulno-The site plan would indicate that we actually have four pits, two which are not in the parking area and two which are in the parking area because of. . . All the minimum distance requirements were met with respect to that one aspect that's the only issue with context to the Sewer Ordinance that was of concern. Supervisor Borgos-Any further questions or comments? Hearing none will close this public 31� hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:45 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST OF ANTHONY RUSSO RESOLUTION NO. 6, OF 1990,1ntroduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, Anthony Russo previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more specifically those prohibiting components of a leaching facility from being located under driveways, roads, parking areas, or areas subject to heavy loading, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on May 21, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants a variance to Anthony Russo, allowing a component of a leaching facility to be placed under a paved parking area on the property, and a. that there are special circumstances or conditions which justify allowing a component of a leaching facility to be placed under a paved parking area in that no other alternative is possible which permits compliance with the saparation distances requirements of the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance, and b. that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and ob,yectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury. c. that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the vat fiances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant, and d.' that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Ml's. Potenza RESOLUTION RESCINDING BOARD OF HEALTH ORDER REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT TAX MAP NO. 83-1-12.1 RESOLUTION NO. 7, OF 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 meeting as the Local Board of Health previously passed Resolution No.1 - 1990 on April 23, 1990, wherein the house located in the Town of Queensbury, Tax Map No. 83-1-12.1, was found to be unsafe for human habitation, and WHEREAS, the aforementioned Resolution imposed the requirement that the existing nuisance be removed, the premises cleaned and no inhabitation of the dwelling occur until further inspection by the Warren County Health Nurse and the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, and WHEREAS, the Board has received and reviewed the attached reports from the Warren County Health Nurse and the Building and Codes Department, which reports state that the unsafe conditions have been established and the dwelling cleaned, and WHEREAS, said reports conclude that the premises are now fit for human habitation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT I RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, acting as the Board of Health, finds that the nuisance located at the dwelling at Tax Map No. 83-1-12.1 has been removed and the premises cleaned, as stated in reports from the Warren County Health Nurse and the Building and Codes Department, and RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 11990 dated April 23, 1990 is hereby rescinded. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: !NYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN AS THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 8, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza DISCUSSION HELD - UNSAFE STRUCTURE Discussion was held on unsafe structure located at 149 Indiana Avenue. Pictures were presented to Board members. (Pictures on file in Town Clerk's Office) RESOLUTION DECLARING UNSAFE STRUCTURE RESOLUTION NO. 302, 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement for the Town of Queensbury has brought to the attention of the Town Board a certain property identified as bearing Tax Map Number 127-4-9 and the address of 149 Indiana Avenue as unsafe and a collapsing structure in need of repair and or demolition and also in need of certain emergency repairs or other work to make the structure to at least to enclose and prevent access to the structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury in the first instance finds that the structure located at 149 Indiana Avenue, Town of Queensbury is dangerous and unsafe to the general public, the Board further finds that the structure is open at the doors and windows and accessible and object of attraction to minors, vagrants or other trespassers and the Board further finds that the building may because of the dead animals and other materials left upon the property may become a place for rodent infestation and further the Board finds that the building is currently unsafe in terms of its structure as the building and codes officer has reported that the roof of the garage is collapsing and ceiling within the interior is collapsing, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby orders and directs that a notice be served upon any and all currently known property owners of the property to be _.served with a notice pursuant to Local Law Number 3 of 1983, Section 6 thereof outlining the particulars in which the building is to be made safe and a statement indicating that the repair, securing or removal of the building shall commence within thirty days of service of notice and shall be completed within sixty days and also providing for a date, time and place for a hearing before this Board and be it further RESOLVED, that the notice shall be served in accordance with the Local Law and shall contain such other matters as are required by the Local Law and be it further �o RESOLVED, that in the meantime the Board finds that an emergency situation exists, that there should be an immediate enclosing of the building before 4:00 p.m., May 22nd and that the property owners be notified of this fact first thing in the morning and that the property owners to be notified are such that Mr. Hatin can find as of record at this time and be it further declared by the Town Board that in the event that the property is not cleaned up and made safe and unaccessible by 4:00 p.m. the Town will enter upon the property, clean up and remove any dead animals that may exist thereon and other food like matters and substances, board the building up, fence the building in and disconnect the utilities and retain the services of pest control, should the owners of the property fail to undertake these measures by 4:00 p.m. and be it further RESOLVED, that any expenditures incurred in connection with the foregoing emergency measurers shall be paid for from the Board of Health Miscellaneous Contractual Line and be it further RESOLVED, that the Board directs that the notice in any event be served upon the Attorney handling the estate. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza DISCUSSION HELD Mr. Dave Hatin-Director of Building and Codes-Requested four workshops with the Town Board, Zoning, Subdivisions, PUD and Sign Ordinance... Supervisor Borgos-Noted he was aware of the need for workshops on these topics... Mr. Dave llatin-Asked for an informational meeting on Sprinkler Systems... Discussion Held by Board it was agreed to have this informational meeting at the second Regular Board meeting in June. OPEN FORUM 9:06 P.M. i. Pliney Tucker-Ward 4, Queensbury. Questioned the Board about the lights on Sherman Island Road? Supervisor Borgos-Stated that a resolution will be drafted at tonight's meeting regarding this. Mr. Tucker-Questioned the Town Attorney about the resident on Sherman Island Road who didn't want the brush cut on her property? Attorney Dusek-Stated there was a conversation with the lady and she is not in favor of having anything cut on her property. Stated this has been put on hold for now until more information can be put together. Mr. Tucker-Questioned the Board on the number of tickets that will be issued when the State Police Satellite Station opens? Councilman Montesi-Noted that their comments were that communities that have satellite or sub-stations in their communities find that they can issue 10,000 additional tickets a year. Mr. Tucker-Questioned the expansion of the Water Treatment Plant, if the citizens of the Town of Queensbury will have a say in this? Supervisor Borgos-Noted that public hearings will have to be held on this before anything can be done. Stated the Board could go as far as selecting an engineer and starting the report. Attorney Dusek-Explained that whenever a governing board for a district decides that improvement is something that is warranted they can expend within the budgetary appropriations an amount to pay for a map, plan, and report which would then be introduced to the citizens and then a public hearing would be held on that in which they can comment on that. Mr. Tucker-Thank you. Paul Naylor-Thanked the Town Board members for going on the road tour. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 303, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approved the minutes of April 23rd, May 11th, and May 14th 1990. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: _._. AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza ABSTAIN:Mr. Kurosaka ( May 11th, May 14th) Mrs. Potenza (May 11th) RESOLUTION REQUESTING STREET LIGHT RESOLUTION NO. 304, OF 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 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 Law Section 64 (19) and Highway Law 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 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 - Intersection of Sherman Island Road and Corinth Road - - New York Telephone Pole #135. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment for said light shall be paid from the Street Lighting & Utilities Account No. A3455182430. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ROAD DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO. 3052 OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of Baywood Drive, in the John M. Hughes Subdivision offered for dedication by John M. Hughes, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions --- undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board 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, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said environmental assessment form are satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town (Clerk) is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF BAYWOOD DRIVE IN JOHN M. HUGHES SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 306, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, John M. Hughes has offered a deed to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury, Baywood Drive, and has also offered to convey two drainage easements in the John M. Hughes Subdivision, which are more particularly described in the survey map presented at this meeting and the original deed with easements being presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised that he has reviewed inspection reports concerning the construction of and specifications of the said road proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury and he has raised no objection to acceptance of the same, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has made an inspection of water mains and appurtenances along said roads proposed for dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road and easements offered for dedication have been reviewed and approved by Paul B . Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the environmental effects of the proposed action by previous resolution and issued a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed with easements for dedication of the said road be and the same is hereby accepted and approved and that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed and easements to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the road be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be described as follows: Description: A loop road with tail extending northwesterly from the west side of Bay Road. Name: Baywood Drive Feet: 1395 Road No. 473 ^7_y a.copted this: '_^:t day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCEPTANCE AND EXECUTION OF WATERLINE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 307, 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 the acceptance of certain waterline and drainage easements along portions of Stone Pine Lane and Willow Road, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board 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, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said environmental assessment form are satisfactory and approved, and , BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part 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 same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF WATERLINE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR STONE PINE LANE AND WILLOW ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 308, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, certain waterline and drainage easements have been presented for acceptance by the Town of Queensbury along portions of Stone Pine Lane and Willow Road, which are more particularly shown on the map copies and original easements being presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised that he has reviewed said easements and he has raised no objection to acceptance of the same, and r WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water, of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has reviewed said easements and he has approved the acceptance of same, and WHEREAS, the form of the easements offered for acceptance have been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned waterline and drainage easements are hereby accepted and approved and that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute, sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to accept said easements and file them in the Warren County Clerk's Office, and -` BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said easements to be filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which said easements shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION IN ESTIMATED REVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 309, OF 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, during October or November of 1989, adopted a budget for the sewer district, which budget provided for the expenditures in line item S-4-38-5-9710-600 (Serial Bond Principal Payment) in an amount of $556,000.00, and said sum was in error and should have been in the amount of $306,000.00, and WHEREAS, as a result of the error made in the aforesaid S-4 line item, the amounts set forth as required in estimated revenue and expenditures were increased by $250,000.00, and now the budget should be amended to reduce that sum by $250,000.00, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes a reduction in estimated revenue by $250,000.00 and a reduction in appropriations by $250,000.00 and a reduction in appropriations by $250,000.00 in the S-4 budget, and further specifically authorizes an adjustment to line item S-4-38-5-9710-600 (Serial Bond Payments) from $556,000.00 to $306,000.00, and the 1990 S-4 budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEWAGE _ DISPOSAL ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 310, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: 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, Christian J. Reinhardt 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 I, must be met. The separation distance required for holding tanks shall be the same as required for septic tanks", APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATIONDISTANCES 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 It to Absorbtion Field If 100' " II and WHEREAS, Christian J. Reinhardt has indicated a desire to place an absorption field 42' from a well rather than placing it at the mandated 100' distance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on June 4th, 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 Christian J. Reinhardt to place an absorption field 42' from the well on property situated at Palmer Drive, Route #4, Box 565, Queensbury, New York, and bearing a tax map no. : Section 144, Block 1, Lot 16, 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 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-Noted the closeness of the absorption field between the well, would feel more comfortable with this if an engineer were to be consulted. Councilman Montesi-Asked if this would be Town charge? Supervisor Borgos-Yes. Councilman Montesi-Stated they could make this a condition of review. Attorney Dusek-Stated when a variance is granted you have to find certain things. Thinks that if the applicant can show those items without an engineer. I don't see anything in the law that would really say he would have to have an engineer, however, I would suspect that some of these items especially the special circumstances and conditions he would probably need some professional of some kind to be able to come in and testify before the Board. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ON CONTRACT NO. 7 FOR THE CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 311, OF 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 has heretofore, by final order dated May 13, 1986, established the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District and authorized improvements for said sewer district, consisting of the construction of a sanitary sewer system to serve said district, including original furnishings, equipment, machinery, or apparatus required in connection therewith, and also including the acquisition of land and rights of land required in connection therewith, all more fully set forth in a map, plan and report prepared by Kestner Engineers, P.C. , and dated as a final report, August 1985, and WHEREAS, improvements as provided for by the aforesaid map, plan and report have all been bid, awarded, and constructed with the exception of some completion and finishing work yet to be completed and with the exception of Contract No. 7 for Low Pressure Pumping Systems, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has not previously authorized the advertising of bids on Contract No. 7 as an application for an increase in expenditures was pending before the New York State Department of Audit and Control, and WHEREAS, said New York State Department of Audit and Control has authorized an increase in expenditures, and a final order of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizing said increase in costs was adopted the 30th day of January, 1990, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of advertising for bids for the construction and installation of low pressure pumping systems in accordance with the specifications for Contract No. 7, a copy of the same being presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the plans, specifications, estimate and proposed contract for the purchase and installation of low pressure pumping systems for the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer Districts, be and they hereby are approved and adopted, and IT IS FURTHER, ORDERED, that the Town Board invites sealed proposals for the furnishing of all material and labor necessary for the proposed improvement, as more specifically set forth in the bidding documents and specifications for Contract No. 7, a copy of the same being presented at this meeting, and that such sealed proposals shall be received by the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at any time, until but not later than, June 14th, 1990 at 2:00 p.m. , and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.m. , by the Town Clerk or such persons designated by the Town Clerk, and BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that notice of such invitation for bids shall be published by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and such other places as may be recommended by Kestner Engineers, P.C. , for not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days before the date upon which sealed proposals will be received, and BE IT FURTHER, ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to open all bids received by the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury at 2:05 p.m. , on June 14th, 1990, read the same aloud, make record of the same as is customarily done, and present the bids at the next regular or specially scheduled meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for the said Town Board's consideration, and BE IT FURTHER, ORDERED, that such plans and specifications shall be publicly exhibited in the Office of the Town Clerk between the date of first publication of such notice provided for herein and the date herein specified for receiving such sealed proposals, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the notice to contractors shall be published in substantially the form set forth in the bidding documents and entitled "Notice to Bidders." r Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDS IN LANDFILL CAPITAL RESERVE RESOLUTION NO. 312, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, on the 11th day of May, 1990, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a resolution authorizing the withdrawal of certain funds from the Landfill Capital Reserve and authorizing the payment of certain bills rendered by Clough, Harbour & Associates, Engineers & Planners, through the County for payment of engineering services proposed in connection with the development of a closure plan, and WHEREAS, said resolution authorized the Town Supervisor to pay to the County of Warren, the aforesaid Clough, Harbour & Associates' bills in an amount not to exceed $11,000.00, and WHEREAS, said bills are in a stated amount of $12,276.08, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is desirous of amending the previous resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the previous resolution to provide that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to pay to the County of Warren, the aforesaid Clough, Harbour & Associates bills in the amount of $12,276.08, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the aforesaid resolution shall remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 313, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. 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 petition for change of zone by Loomis J. Grossman, Jr. , Richard A. Grossman, Walter H. Rubin and Robert C. Baker, whereby a portion of their parcel of land, known as Tax Map No. 71-1-3, would be changed from MR-5A to HC-lA, thus modifying ___ the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and WHEREAS, in order so amend, change, modify, or repeal the Ordinance, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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 a 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, RESOLVED, that 'said public hearing shall be held on June 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. , at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes of publication in an 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 also hereby directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD TO BE DESIGNATED AS LEND AGENCY REGARDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 314, OF 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 presently considering the amendment, supplementation, change, or modification of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically a change of zone of a portion of the property owned by Loomis J. Grossman, Jr. , Richard A. Grossman, Walter H. Rubin and Robert C. Baker, their parcel of property being tax map no. 71-1-3, changed from MR-5A to HC-lA, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and 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 a Type I 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 hereby directs the Town Planner for the Town of Queensbury to notify the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, the Warren County Planning Board, the Adirondack Park Agency, and any other involved agencies, of this desire, and that a lead agency must be designated within 30 days and to further send a copy of the Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, this resolution, and the proposed amendments and notifications to these agencies. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENTS TO QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT - TRANSMISSION MAINS IN WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD AND AVIATION ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 315, OF 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 has heretofore established and consolidated several water districts which are now identified as and known as the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, the said Town Board is desirous of increasing and improving the facilities of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, to wit, the construction and installation of transmission mains in West Mountain Road and Aviation Road, to join two (2) separate transmission mains which end at that point and create a transmission main loop for that area of the district being served, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has caused a report of said proposed additions and improvements to be prepared by R.H. Irish, Consulting Engineer, and WHEREAS, said report shows the installation and construction of the aforesaid improvement of facilities, and WHEREAS, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvement and/or acquisition of the necessary pipes and other facilities is in the sum of $170,700.00, and WHEREAS, the said Town Board is desirous of conducting a public hearing thereon and publishing and posting a notice thereof, NOW, ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN MR. RONALD MONTESI AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN MRS. BETTY MONAHAN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:30 p.m. , on the 4th day of June, 1990, to consider said map, plan and report, and to hear all persons interested in the subject matter thereof concerning the same and to take such other action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the action being considered by the Town Board is preliminarily determined to be an unlisted action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and the Town Planner, with the assistance of the Town Attorney, is hereby requested to prepare a Short Environmental Assessment Form, with the same to be presented to the Town Board for its consideration in determining whether there will be any significant environmental impacts with regard to the proposed construction and installation of the aforesaid water transmission main. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ' ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD TO BE DESIGNATED AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 316, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering the amendment, supplementation, change, or modification of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically a change of zone of property owned by David E. Williams, his parcel of property being tax map no. 51-1-40, changed from RR-3A to HC-lA, this modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and 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 an unlisted action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board 6f 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 hereby directs the Town Planner for the Town of Queensbury to notify the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, the Warren County Planning Board, the Adirondack Park Agency, and any other involved agencies, of this desire, and that a lead agency must be designated within 30 days and to further send a copy of the Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, this resolution, and the proposed amendments and notifications to these agencies. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 317, OF 1990, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. 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 petition for change of zone by David E. Williams, Sr. , whereby their parcel of land, known as Tax Map No. 51-1-40, would be changed from RR-3A to HC-lA, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, 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 said proposed amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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 a 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, -- RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on June 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. , at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York,, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes of publication in an 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 also hereby directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD TO BE DESIGNATED AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 318, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering the amendment, supplementation, change, or modification of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically a change of zone of property owned by Karen L. Sommer, her parcel of property being tax map no. 22-2-3, changed from RR-5A to LC-10A, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and 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 an 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 hereby directs the Town Planner for the Town of Queensbury to notify the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, the Warren County Planning Board, the Adirondack Park Agency, and any other involved agencies, of this desire, and that a lead agency must be designated within 30 days and to further send a copy of the Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, this resolution, and the proposed amendments and notifications to these agencies. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE -REGARDING _. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 319, OF 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. 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 petition for change of zone by Karen L. Sommer, whereby her parcel of land, known as Tax Map No. 22-2-3, would be changed from RR-5A to LC-10A, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, 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 said proposed amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 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 hears, upon and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on June 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. , at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin board outside the Clerk's Office 3� said notice, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Planner of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ENGINEERING WORK ON BIDDING DOCUMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 320, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes Rist Frost Associates to do engineering work on bidding documents and supervision of the work for lighting project (out door tennis and basketball courts) on the Queensbury School Grounds for the Recreation Dept. and be it further RESOLVED, that the cost of said work as stated above shall not exceed $7,500.00. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza COMMUNICATIONS Town Clerk-Read bids for a Vibratory Roller/Highway Department Southworth Machinery 90 Harts Lane 1988 HYSTER-766 $103,525.00 Albany, NY 12204 Contractors Sales Company 1980 Rexworks Model P.O. Box 12010 SP 1100 NC Attached 15,000.00 Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendents recommendation Contractors Sales. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR VIBRATORY ROLLER TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 321, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for one (1) used roller, 1980 or newer, & less than 2500 hours, pursuant to Town of Queensbury Highway Specifications, and WHEREAS, the firm of Contractors Sales Company, Inc. , has submitted the lowest bid for the roller, said roller being one (1) 1980 Rexworks Model SP1100 Vibratory Roller, a copy of their bid being presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent, has recommended that the bid be awarded to the aforesaid bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for one (1) 1980 Rexworks Model SP1100 Vibratory Roller, to Contractors Sales Company, Inc. , and that said roller be paid from the Highway Department Heavy Equipment Account, No. : D1655130.204. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 322, OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on abstract May 21st, 1990 numbering -_ 90 - 2187 and 90 - 2220 thru 90 - 2486 and totaling $244,381.20 is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 323 OF 1990,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session litigation. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY