Loading...
1991-11-26 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1991 5:06 p.m. MTG. #57 RES. 622 - 635 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Stephen Borgos Councilman George Kurosaka Councilman Marilyn Potenza Councilman Ronald Montesi Councilman Betty Monahan Town Attorney Paul Dusek Supervisor Borgos called the meeting to order... DISCUSSION HELD ON 1. BUCKEL Y BRYAN JR. - REZONING- OFF MANOR DRIVE Public Hearing has been held on this rezoning...Requested that Mrs. Monahan speak on the proposa1...(used drawings) Councilman Monahan-I have made some changes in the SEQRA form and have comments as we go through, that will reflect some of the work that I have been doing. I do want to say that there was a mathematical mis-calculation in the amount of units that would be left to the developer to do which I will explain to you when I get to the SEQRA how that happened. (SHOWED DRAWINGS) the proposed building for National Church residences... the layout of the apartments... a drawing showing what the rest of the parcel could look like once developed...approximately 120 units he would be allowed 121...5 acres for National Church Residences and 3 acres for the Town as a park...no access to Fox Farm Road except for a bikeway...the buffer would be covered by deed restrictions... Debbie Collins-Requested that buffer areas be left in ... Councilman Monahan-spoke on another proposal for 132 units not counting National Church...showed layout... Reviewed how density is established... Mr. Collins-The three acres will be at no cost to the Town... Councilman Monahan-No...we will be paid a recreation fee and then purchase... no price set... Mrs. Collins-Questioned the cutting on the buffer zone... Councilman Monahan-They permit a certain amount of clean up the brush etc. but the visual not clear to the point where there would be an impact...noted that there may be a situation with the Kamer Blue Butterfly, that must be preserved... Supervisor Borgos-Place in the restrictions that no trees should be cut except dying or disease trees, for safety reasons some brush cut from time to time... Mr. Collins-Noted that the present bike trail that is there appears to be on the State property, will it be possible to use this existing trail? Supervisor Borgos-We can ask. Councilman Montesi-We are proposing to buy property for a park, questioned if the Recreation Commission has been brought into this? ...questioned the impact oftraffic...suggested that Mr. Bryan be contacted and see if he would consider rezoning only five acres for the Seniors...then we would look favorably on a plan that when he comes to the Planning and Town Board for a rezone....! am not sure what we have here, we have concepts. Councilman Monahan-Noted regarding the park property if the Town does not want to buy the park property it does not have to. Councilman Montesi-He then could use that land for an increase in density... Attorney Dusek-As a condition you could limit the density... Councilman Monahan-Commenting on the proposal of only rezoning five acres..would have to have another public hearing on just the five acres... Councilman Potenza-Concern-noted overwhelming support for five acres only...the location is wonderful but the concessions are astronomical. Councilman Montesi-What kind of ground does this Town Board or the future Town Board standing on in regards to doing a rezoning and accepting an environmental impact without knowing the specifics of what that looked like. Councilman Monahan-also-to be sure that we do not do things in rezoning that belong in site plan review. Town Attorney Dusek-The concerns that were raised at the last meeting were such that and the reports that I was seeing were such that I had concerns about SEQRA in making sure, that the SEQRA process was completed in a proper fashion. The conservative answer is to tell you to do an EIS that is the conservative answer, on the other hand the question was posed to me is there any other way of dealing with this, sort of an EIS? Can we come up with a different way of handling it and the paper I handed you tonight is a mechanism that I came up with...the usual rule in SEQRA is to combine everything in one step and review the entire project as it is totally planned out, in the smaller rezoning we have not had serious difficulties because the smaller rezoning do not have that impact and you can readily see that. In this particular case this is one of those projects where I had mixed feelings on whether there was or wasn't an impact but I was seeing things that I felt I should advise you of and tell you about... the question became is there anyway to deal with this? What I have written up is a proposal in essence saying that the SEQRA process that we have engaged in to date, covers the development of a forty one unit senior citizens complex and the subdivision of the parcel into three portions. The senior citizens portion, the park portion and the rest of the land, that would allow that much. If the developer wanted to do anything further at a later date, when he came in for site plan review which of course he must in this particular zone for any further development it is the condition here that he has to once again undergo a full blown site environmental review process of each site and it is a further condition that if for some reason a denial of the use of the site based on SEQRA that his zone or rezoning would be modified to delete that allowed use on that particular portion of land. Is this something that is new and different, I submit that it is, I am not aware of any particular case that has really addressed this type of concept, do I think it is possible that it can work, I think it might, I like the argument in the since that I feel that we are fully complying with SEQRA except for putting it off for a later date. The question is, that this would have to be incorporated in the covenants and restrictions...in brief conversations with Mr. Bryan that he would, I think, agree with this something of this nature... Can I give you a guarantee of what the legal outcome will be, no, personally I am in new territory with this one in terms of this type of proposal, do I feel there is a basis though to say that we should go ahead and take a look at it, I think there is... Supervisor Borgos-Noted that at a meeting, he would have no problem with this kind ofrestriction...he did indicate that he would not sell just the five acres. Attorney Dusek-This does cause the zone to shrink in the event that he is not able to pass SEQRA review...it does not deny him total use of the land.... Councilman Montesi-Biggest concern of residents was the traffic...how does SEQRA address this... Councilman Monahan-This was going to go in the mitigation part of the SEQRA... we have two traffic studies done for the Town one by CT Male and Traffic Engineering Evaluation in Warren County DPW. Two areas of concerns near this development, Aviation and Potter and Aviation and Quaker...the mitigation would be areas of concern have been identified through traffic studies, mitigation on the studies have been proposed with the development that has already been proposed those developments were the three PUD's West Mt., Earltown and Hiland. At the present time West Mt. is not going and Earltown is not going. DOT was called on the proposed rezoning it did not feel that the forty one units a problem at this location but that any further development would have to have a new traffic study done by the developer, that was going to be in the mitigation part of the traffic concern. Supervisor Borgos-Further restriction, if approved, one development allowed first but after completion of that development not more than 50% of the remaining amount of property could be built out in any two year period......allowing time to address problem on Aviation Road... Mr. Girard-Questioned if Mrs. Monahan had asked Mr. Bryan to go with only five acres? Councilman Monahan-I asked him if he would be interested in breaking out the five acres, he told me no... Mr. Girard-When was the date of the last public hearing. Supervisor Borgos-Approximately two weeks... Attorney Dusek-There are three substantial agencies involved are this Board the Town Planing Board and the Warren County Planning Board, there are other agencies that have to be notified under State law but that is notification and you do that at the same time as you do the advertisement to the newspaper etc. The Planning Board would also review it...the other agencies are just notified pursuant to SEQRA and Town Law and there are General Municipal Law notification as well. Mr. Girard-Questioned that if you changed the resolution you would have to have review by pertinent planning boards...that was the time constraint problem. Attorney Dusek-Noted that if you can lessen the problem you do not have to go through a public hearing the concern I have here is that this is a substantial change... Mr. Girard-Why didn't Warren Co. Planning Board recommend this? Supervisor Borgos- They had one objection, they saw no documentation that would indicate that the property would be able to hold the density...concerned about the engineering part... we looked and there was reference in the engineering report specifically to density and to the perk and the fact that the engineers felt it was suitable, somehow Warren Co. overlooked it apparently...the Town Planning Board recommended in favor with conditions.... Councilman Potenza-I am concerned with the land...! know the land was zoned residential single family prior to the Master Plan, the meeting of the Advisory Committee in the reviewing of the area, that committee up graded it to single family residence three acres and now we are going to multi unit... Councilman Monahan-The reason that was zoned 3 A was from very broad soil and geological maps...it was said to be afterwards that it did not mean that in those broad brushed areas that there would not be an area that would be suitable for denser development if they could prove their case through engineering studies. Councilman Potenza-Mr. Bryan did go before the Master Plan committee and asking them to re-consider... Councilman Monahan-At that time ...the studies had not been done. Councilman Potenza-The response for the Master Plan Committee was bring sewers up there and we will do it, because they were concerned about the perk tests. Councilman Monahan-When he took his drawings and report into the Planning Office it was suggested to him he probably had the data to request the rezoning which he did not bother to do at that time. Mr. Girard-What you have proposed just recently in how to get by the evaluating the full blow SEQRA on the whole project wouldn't that require a public hearing, that is a major change as far as I am concerned. Councilman Monahan-I will say that another Attorney who is very knowledgeable in this field was consulted and he also agreed that the SEQRA could be a two step process. Attorney Dusek-As I think about it, this condition does not change the nature of the project, it just simply controls the development... Mr. Girard-If I take you to Court on it saying you should have a public hearing you feel you have some strong grounds to win it? Attorney Dusek-Yes. Mr. Girard-You are asking the Board to approve something with a contingency that is probably the most material contingency of the whole project, does it have SEQRA implications if they approve something that its OK if that happens but you really at this time do not know if it has material implications to traffic or what not because you haven't taken the time to fill out the full blown SEQRA on the full project you just zero in on the five acres. There seems to be an inconsistence here how can you tell the Board to approve the project in total but not go through the SEQRA process. Attorney Dusek-One, I am not asking the Board to approve anything...the Board has asked me is there a way to address this and this is the answer that I have come up with, which I would not recommend if I didn't feel that there was a basis for recommending it. The second thing is as far as the SEQRA Review is concerned the reason why I recommended this is I think it supports all elements of the SEQRA process. In otherwords, the spirit of SEQRA is the law, is that you ultimately do a SEQRA review and that you consider things that could be harmful to the environment. Certainly this proposal keeps that spirit alive and well, and no one could argue that, I have in any fashion defeated the SEQRA process by this proposal. Whereas in segmentation you may do that you mess up the issues that have to be adjusted and you don't address everything up front. In this particular case what I think I have managed to do is preserve everything and then it is just not the SEQRA review though is that I have also said that if they do not get approval I put some teeth into it to allow them to reduce down the density to not allow a particular use which in that case then that would actually reduce the impact of the development. Mr. Girard-Isn't that clause you are building in a major change? Attorney Dusek-I do not think so, I think it is no different than adding a 100 foot buffer zone... Councilman Montesi-It is not going to reduce the density it is just, he has got to go to another use... Attorney Dusek-It could reduce the density if he cannot find anything else that would work.. Councilman Montesi-Who made the maps up? Mr. Leon Steves-Buck Bryan did come into the office and did engage us to do this work.. Mr. Girard-There are certain costS that the town will incur, Mr. Steves has drawn a lengthy road inside the project, is the Town of Queensbury going to incur this cost of constructing this road? Supervisor Borgos-The initial concept was a loop road and the proposal was and is to acquire from N.Y. State.. (tape turned) 100' that would be turned over to the Town my recommendation at that point that the Town if necessary do that little piece of road at 100' long no construction on the private property. Councilman Kurosaka-Noted, like any subdivision, the developer puts in the roads. Mr. Girard-Noted his project Cline Meadow with SEQRA all 20 acres had to be done this project seems to be getting a lot of concessions...biggest concern was traffic...Mr. Austin has announced traffic studies to be done on Corinth Road and Broad Street, Corinth Road and a section of Route 9, I asked him about Aviation Road...we talked about Aviation Road, but chose not to do a study at this point... Supervisor Borgos-Aviation Road is a Town Road so it would not be eligible for State Aid...everything west of the Northway is Town roads.. Mr. Girard-Then this project where you are putting it not the retirement project but what you are allowing to be done to this land is going to cost the taxpayers money because you are going to have to do something with that road... Supervisor Borgos-According to the studies that are done now the level of service already is not where it should be so something is going to have to be done anyway. Councilman Monahan-Or else we will put a moratorium on development west of the northway bridge. Mr. Girard-You have subdivisions up there that are not fully developed yet. Supervisor Borgos-A number of them. Mr. Girard-So traffic is naturally going to get worse and you are compounding the problem. Supervisor Borgos- There is a great deal of vacant land up there and my guess is that people will want to develop it. Councilman Montesi-questioned how the road will be placed to get to the senior citizens center without a site plan review? Supervisor Borgos-It is all subject to site plan review...the proposal would be to run a driveway as a temporary or eventually if necessary a permanent way to get in here.... Councilman Montesi-question only one entrance... Supervisor Borgos-Noted this would be like a Boulevard.... Mr. Girard-You have went to the other extreme, you could have went back to him and talked about the five acres and there are things you could have, through talking with Jerry Solomon to get yourself a couple of weeks, you also have an alternative site and that is my final question...the site that we brought up has never been acted on can it still be voted on? Attorney Dusek-Offhand I know of no limitation in terms of time from the time you have a public hearing until the time you take action...it is conceivable that it could be acted upon, I would like to go back and make sure I am not missing something... Mr. Girard-I offer to the Board the Cline Meadow site as originally brought before you as an alternative if you need to take action tonight if you need to put a contingency on Mr. Bryan and he does not accept those contingencies maybe it would be wise to also take a vote on your alternative site tonight so that when you talk to Mr. Solomon you can tell him you have taken some action you have made some approvals it is now in the landlords hands and the final decision will be phoned in. Supervisor Borgos-I think you should know for the record that it is not because any of us failed to contact Mr. Solomon's Office for an extension because believe me we did, we stretched and we stretched, week after week after week we begged and pleaded and gave every possible explanation for why we needed more time we have been doing that since June or July. They have given and give and finally we came to the end of the line, the end of the line is tonight. Councilman Monahan-Noted that we have not done the SEQRA on the Girard Property, noted objection from neighbors besides traffic that will have to be answered... Mr. Girard-If you can sit here and say you have traffic problems on Meadowbrook how can you sit here and approve this project and say you don't have traffic problems... Councilman Monahan-Noted that more people are using Meadowbrook since the light... Mr. Girard-You have walked the property with Mr. Montesi ....that property had a brick factory on it, the foundation is still out there, it had to be a sizable building of some weight, it can hold the structure...are you aware of that at alL.. Councilman Monahan-Yes Mr. Girard-You made the comment that it is a swamp. Councilman Monahan-Since the brick factory was there, Quaker Road had gone in, Quaker Road has made some drainage problems in this town I am also aware of the fact that one of the neighbors has lived on that site a lot longer than you have, informed me of the day the children came in and said we have a pool in such an area had opened up and filled with water that the neighbors filled in that spot so that the children would not get harmed in it. I also had other people in that area say that before they could sell my house I had to go down and mop my cellar to make sure it would be dry. I realize National Church residences is not going to have a cellar it would be on a slab I also realize that, that land has had a lot of fill brought in from everything that the people in the area have told me and I see no reason not to respect their word. I know that when you have fill in land you have some problems when you build. Mr. Girard-The property is in a class C...the Planning Board has approved development at the golf course which is in a class B flood zone of many units so you are in the same area, you are in the same flood plain and again it is just a contradiction of item, I hate to see that property keep being ridiculed publicly it is not a swamp. Councilman Monahan-When Mr. Girard went to the Planning Board and got subdivision approval because of the character of the remaining land there was a restriction put on that, that remaining acreage had to go for one building lot... Mr. Girard-We were contacted by National Church residences because the Town of Queensbury picked that site...one of five sites. Supervisor Borgos-Noted that Mr. Montesi had told be that the entire parcel was for sale before you built any homes at all., that is how it got onto a list.... Councilman Potenza-I am sure we are not here to debate, the fact of the matter is, it is still there is an option the sin of it would be to see this project go away from this town when there is such a strong need for senior citizens housing in the Town of Queensbury ... I thank you sir for offering your property because I certainly think that is a strong alternative. Mr. Girard-I apologize for getting of the beat I did not mean to get too our property. Supervisor Borgos-I have to be able to tell Washington tomorrow if we are rezoned or if we are stalled agaIn... RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING RESOLUTION NO. 622,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan Discussion Councilman Monahan- Page 2a change 24 to 24 +- Acres Page 3 item 11 note that the Blue Kamer Butterfly may have a site there that will be investigated before development for any sites for the protection of the Blue Kamer Butterfly B. la the acres should be 24 + - h. 169 replace with 217 + - and then put including the 41 Page 4 3a. add including some professional and commercial uses Page 5 4. 169 replace with 217 +- acres would be 16.96 +- uses permitted by zone Page 5 9. lots proposed 3 (including the park) a. minimum lot size proposed is 5 acres because that is for the residential, National Church residences three acres for the park Page 7 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? YES down under the mitigation conditions at 5 go up three dots- already it says fill systems in individual perk tests to limit development and add condition water saving devices will be also used to control the amount of sewage and the note will go in there because it mentions Water and Sewer that the Town Water can be brought on site add mitigation traffic light when necessary at Aviation and Potter when the level of service demands and again the areas of concerns have been identified by two traffic studies mitigation with development has been proposed already in this study and those were the developments West Mt., Earltown and Hiland, two of those are not doing anything at this time, DOT was called the proposed rezoning and did not feel that the 41 units a problem at this location but that any further development will require a new traffic study by the developer. Attorney Dusek-Before the Board votes I think I would like to recommend an executive session for purposes of discussing Attorney Client Privilege information ... RESOLUTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION 622 RESOLUTION NO. 623, 1991 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 tables Resolution NO. 622. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 624, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into executive session to discuss Attorney Client Privilege. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO MOVE BACK INTO SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 625, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns the executive session and moves back into Regular Session. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO UNTABLE RESOLUTION 622 RESOLUTION NO. 626, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 622 of 1991 is hereby back onto the floor. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING RESOLUTION NO.: 622,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain property owned by 1. Buckley Bryan, Jr. (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 73-1-22), 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 a Type I action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has reviewed the matter of rezoning the parcel in question and the Planning Department's comments have been considered by the Town Board and are presented at this meeting and to be made a part of the Town Clerk's files kept in connection with this matter, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board and Town Engineer have likewise made comments and the same have also been considered by the Town Board, are presented at this meeting and are to be made a part of the Town Clerk's files kept in connection with this matter, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the fact that the proposed legislation be modified to include a clause limiting development and requiring SEQRA Reviews at further and later dates and also requiring a 300' buffer zone and from that buffer zone a further distance of 100' in which no building could be constructed and also considered the requirement of water saving devices for plumbing fixtures and considering that the resolution authorizing the rezoning will also contain a condition not allowing access onto Fox Farm Road and only allowing that of a bike trail and the board having considered these conditions and planning to amend the actual resolution of rezoning to incorporate these revisions before entering into and voting upon this resolution consideration of the modification or errors that have been pointed out by Mrs. Monahan in the long form EAS Part I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, the comments made by the Planning Department, Planning Board and Town Engineer, and after 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 of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part 11 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 Attorney's Office 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 7th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES NOES ABSENT No vote taken- Supervisor Borgos-the timing with the road rebuilding is a problem the timing with having to rush with Washington is a problem but really we have had it for over two years, maybe that is our fault... Councilman Monahan-The other rezoning that was proposed was not brought in until it was talked about for a long time... Supervisor Borgos-the is another issue related to timing, an announcement will be made in just a few minutes, a significant announcement ... Councilman Monahan-Questioned is Supervisor wished to hold back the vote for a few minutes to make the announcement... RESOLUTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION NO. 627,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Stephen Borgos RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby tables resolution NO. 622 of 1991 Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Borgos-Requested that Mr. Dusek speak to the Town Board... Attorney Dusek-I have received a decision from the Surrogates Court of Saratoga County, regarding the will of Mabel Ellsworth...the Town is to receive a sum of money from the estate of Mabel Ellsworth...we do not have a fixed amount, range of half a million to one million dollars...monies are required to be used by the Town in my opinion in a manner consistent with the terms of the will...originally the will had contemplated giving land,before the person died the land was under contract for sale...the court feels the Town is entitled to the money from that land....the land was given for purposes of a public park so it would seem that the money should also be used for park for senior citizens...noted that the case is not over, many proceedings to be gone thorough... Supervisor Borgos-My thinking had been if the timing had been right and we knew the money was coming the Town could buy this whole parcel for Senior Citizens...or all but a small amount for Senior Citizens housing with a park around it for senior use... Councilman Potenza-Who says we can't use the money to foster senior citizen housing in this Town and it does not have to be on Manor Drive...this is a golden opportunity to do something for Senior Citizens...to do something in addition to National Church Residences... RESOLUTION TO UNTABLE RESOLUTION NO. 628,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 622 of 1991 be hereby back onto the floor. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Borgos-We are back to the discussion phase, before the vote I would like to make one last pitch and I know it is not a perfect spot, I have been concerned with the traffic I do drive that section every day, I have driven that section for over twenty years. I think the housing is necessary, I think the public purpose of the housing in this case, this one case, to provide housing for 41 families, people, single bedroom units is critical and I think it is so difficult to get this kind of funding that I would urge people to support it. I am well aware of the concerns of the residents in that area, I empathize and sympathize and encourage the town to move forward immediately to address the general traffic concerns on that strip of Aviation Road, I think both can be done at the same time, I think everybody could be satisfied. I think the restrictions placed on this land will solve the problems of the neighbors, the concerns of the Fox Farm Road people and the others. I will call Washington one way or the other, and if there is any other way to delay things I will. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING RESOLUTION NO.: 622,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain property owned by 1. Buckley Bryan, Jr. (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 73-1-22), 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 a Type I action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has reviewed the matter of rezoning the parcel in question and the Planning Department's comments have been considered by the Town Board and are presented at this meeting and to be made a part of the Town Clerk's files kept in connection with this matter, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board and Town Engineer have likewise made comments and the same have also been considered by the Town Board, are presented at this meeting and are to be made a part of the Town Clerk's files kept in connection with this matter, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the fact that the proposed legislation be modified to include a clause limiting development and requiring SEQRA Reviews at further and later dates and also requiring a 300' buffer zone and from that buffer zone a further distance of 100' in which no building could be constructed and also considered the requirement of water saving devices for plumbing fixtures and considering that the resolution authorizing the rezoning will also contain a condition not allowing access onto Fox Farm Road and only allowing that of a bike trail and the board having considered these conditions and planning to amend the actual resolution of rezoning to incorporate these revisions before entering into and voting upon this resolution consideration of the modification or errors that have been pointed out by Mrs. Monahan in this long form EAS Part I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, the comments made by the Planning Department, Planning Board and Town Engineer, and after 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 of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part 11 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 Attorney's Office 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 7th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES NOES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos : Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi ABSENT : None Discussion held following introduction of Resolution No. 629, 1991 Attorney Dusek recommended the following changes: #10 after the word application. (add) In this event, (at the very end of the sentence (add) based upon the SEQRA Review. added page that was given to Town Board number as #12 and change old number 12 to 13 ... Page 4 Number 6 at the end of add .. this area specifically shall consist of that part of a parcel adjacent and touching Fox Farm Road for a distance of 300' from said Fox Farm Road as more specifically shown on a map or sketch made for National Church Residences by VanDusen and Steves, dated November 25, 1991 said map being incorporated into the minutes of this meeting, map number 91319B, and the building set back line shall be 100' from the 300' buffer zone aforedescribed and as set forth on the sketch made for National Church Residences also aforedescribed, and a further condition is added that there shall be no entrance or exit from the parcel to be rezoned onto or from Fox Farm Road except a bikeway. Councilman Monahan-Questioned the water saving devices... Attorney Dusek-Add to Number 8 ...under all circumstances water saving devices shall be installed on all fixtures such as shower heads and faucets and in all instances toilet or water closets shall be of a 1.6 gallon per flush except in those instances where the premises has been made handicapped accessible and in those instances it shall comply with State Law. Councilman Montesi-questioned #9 all of these things are allowed in the MR5 zones... Attorney Dusek -You would have to put a number in here, if you wanted to limit it in some fashion or a percentage...the issue at the time we drafted it was once again mitigation measurers and whether you wanted to use that condition in some fashion to limit this project further... Councilman Montesi-It does not make any sense putting it in there... it is a mute question because I do not know what he is going to do... Councilman Kurosaka-that can be covered in Site Plan Review... It was agreed to take out #9 Attorney Dusek -Noted that due to the changes that have been made the numbering will have to be changed.. . RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY 1. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. (TAX MAP NO. 73-1-22) FROM RR-3A TO MR-5 RESOLUTION NO. 629,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka WHEREAS, 1. Buckley Bryan, Jr. petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a zoning change of his property (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 73-1-22) from the current zoning designation ofRR-3A (Rural Residential- 1 Principal Building Allowed for Every 3 Acres Within the Zone) to the zoning designation ofMR-5 (Multi-Family Residential - 1 Dwelling Unit for Every 5,000 square feet of Land Area Within the Zone) subject to certain condition generally set forth in the Resolution Setting a Public Hearing in connection with this matter, and WHEREAS, on September 30, 1991, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended approval of the petition, with certain comments having been made, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board recommended disapproval of said petition, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered comments made by the Planning Department, Planning Board, and Town Engineer and Warren County, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on November 7,1991, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the rezoning will have no significant environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the areas to be rezoned, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone the property owned by 1. Buckley Bryan, Jr. (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 73-1-22) from the current zoning designation ofRR-3A (Rural Residential - 1 Principal Building Allowed for Every 3 Acres Within the Zone) to the zoning designation ofMR-5 (Multi-Family Residential - 1 Dwelling Unit for Every 5,000 square feet of Land Area Within the Zone) subject to the conditions, which shall be generally as follows: 1) A portion of the subject premises, of not less than five contiguous acres, shall be used for the purpose of constructing a 41 Unit HUD Section 202 Project for Senior Citizens and no other purpose; and 2) At any given time, a minimum of fifty-percent (50%) of all dwelling units built and in existence on the subject premises shall be Senior Citizen preferred and/or handicapped accessible and useable in accordance with the New York State Uniform Building Code. The number of units built in connection with the 41 Unit HUD Section 202 Project shall be included for purposes of determining compliance with this condition; and 3) At any given time, a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of all dwelling units built or in existence on the subject premises, exclusive of the 41 Unit HUD Section 202 Project, shall be handicapped accessible and useable in accordance with the New York State Uniform Building Code. The number of units built as part of the 41 Unit HUD Section 202 Project shall not be included for purposes of determining compliance with this condition, regardless of whether the same is handicapped accessible; and 4. A parcel in the minimum size of three contiguous acres of the subject premises shall be left vacant, undeveloped, and in its natural state, except that the same may be: A) used or developed for public park purposes; or B) sold and used or developed for public park purposes. The said parcel may not be used for any other purposes; and 5. There will be an area left for a bike path or trail to, in some manner, cross the property, generally from the east to west side, in the form of one continuous trail or path; and 6. Certain trees and shrubs currently in existence and adjacent to Fox Farm Road shall be left in their natural state and not cut or removed, unless hazardous or diseased, and this area to be further defined and identified as a "Buffer zone left pursuant to the Town of Queensbury Conditional Rezoning and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants filed with the Warren County Clerk Offices" on any and all site plans and subdivision plans presented to the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury for review and/or approval for any part of the subject premises, and this area specifically shall consist of that part of a parcel adjacent and touching Fox Farm Road for a distance of 300' from said Fox Farm Road as more specifically shown on a map or sketch made for National Church Residences by VanDusen and Steves, dated November 25, 1991 said map being incorporated into the minutes of this meeting, map number 91319B, and the building set back line shall be 100' from the 300' buffer zone aforedescribed and as set forth on the sketch made for National Church Residences also aforedescribed, and a further condition is added that there shall be no entrance or exit from this parcel to be rezoned onto or from Fox Farm Road except a bikeway 7. To the extent that circumstances permit, without obtaining variances, the subject premises shall be developed in accordance with Section 179-44, et. seq. of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, authorizing clustering; and 8. Standard field percolation tests shall be conducted for verification of laboratory permeability test results, prior to any subdivision approval or site plan approval requiring subsurface sewage disposal and stormwater infiltration systems. In the event that suitable septic systems cannot be built in compliance with all State and Local Laws, development of the property with dwelling units or other buildings will be limited to a number or square footage for which proper septic systems can be constructed; and under all circumstances water saving devices shall be installed on all fixtures such as shower heads and faucets and in all instances toilet or water closets shall be of a 1.6 gallon per flush except in those instances where the premises has been made handicapped accessible and in those instances it shall comply with State Law; and 9. The subject premises shall be developed in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise provided herein, and all subdivision approvals and/or site plan approvals shall be obtained and recreation fees imposed by law shall be paid as is usually required for any other project requiring subdivision or site plan approval; and 10. All development of the parcel to be rezoned, including the construction of all structures or buildings shall be subject to the following condition. With the exception of the 41 Unit Section 202 Project for Senior Citizens and subdivision of the parcel into three lots (one for the Senior Citizens Project, one for the establishment of a park, and one constituting the remainder of the parcel) which have been considered as part of the SEQRA review conducted in connection with a rezoning application approved by the Town of Queensbury, and giving rise to these conditions and covenants, all development of the parcel and construction of structures or buildings thereon shall be subject to future environmental reviews at the time Planning Board site plan and/or subdivision approval is requested. The Environmental Review shall be conducted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the related New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's regulations. Detection of adverse environmental impacts after study, as required by SEQRA, may, at the determination of the Planning Board and based on the applicable SEQRA laws, result in denial of any future site plan or subdivision application. In this event, uses allowed by the rezoning shall be accordingly modified to delete the allowed use on the particular parcel of land for which site plan or subdivision approval cannot be obtained, based upon the SEQRA Review. 11. Until the 41 Unit HUD Section 202 Project is under construction and building permits for the same have been issued, no other buildings shall be constructed anywhere on the property rezoned by this Resolution without Town Board approval; and 12. The change of zone shall be granted subject to voluntary covenants and restrictions imposed upon the subject premises by the applicant herein, Mr. 1. Buckley Bryan, Jr., and subject to revision only with Town Board of the Town of Queensbury consent, as set forth in a written instnnnent to be duly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County and this resolution and said change of zone shall become effective only upon Town Board approval of the covenants and restrictions and recording of the same by the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the zoning map for the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provide for the rezoning of said lands, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the requirements of Article II of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Section 265 of the Town Law, the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified copy of said changes be published in the Glens Falls Post -Star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect ten (10) days after said publication. Duly adopted this 7th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, ABSENT : None MOTION DEFEATED Supervisor Borgos-Noted that due to the negative vote of the Warren County Planning Board to pass we would need four votes to carry this... Councilman Potenza-It would be my intention because of the desperate need for Senior Citizens housing in this Town and the financial backing that the National Church Residences would receive through a Federal Grant that this Board strongly, very strongly reconsider the Girard Property, I know the paper work is ready to act on, I know that this is the 11th hour but again I urge this Board to reconsider that location... Supervisor Borgos-I have some serious concerns that I would want to address and certainly we have promised the people on Meadowbrook that if we ever decided to reconsider the property we would announce it specifically to them and give them the opportunity to be heard again. Councilman Monahan-I have a SEQRA report that I have made a lot of corrections and additions to without it here, I do not feel that I could do any action plus the fact I really not going to vote for warehousing seniors and putting them in an area like that. Supervisor Borgos-Noted he would try to get another extension from Washington... Councilman Monahan- I have evaluated that property I would not put anybody in my family there if I won't put anybody in family there I certainly would not vote to put seniors in this town there. Councilman Montesi-I think both Marilyn and I would have voted yes on this project if we had looked at five acres... Supervisor Borgos-I think everyone would have... RESOLUTION TO UNTABLE RESOLUTION NO. 630,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby untables Resolution NO. 620 of 1991. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF VOUCHER SUBMITTED BY THE BELDEN COMPANY FOR WORK PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRACT 7- QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 620, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. George Kurosaka RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes payment of the annexed voucher no. 91005868, in the amount of $11,623.63, to the Belden Company. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion held regarding Landfill hours...and fees... Mr. Coughlin has recommended the hours at 8-4 at Ridge Road... Supervisor Borgos noted that we may have to reduce the number of days of operation...use employees from Ridge Road to Luzerne Road on off days...eliminating part time people.... have to cut down overtime.. RESOLUTION SETTING LANDFILL FEES RESOLUTION NO. 631,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan: Proposed that the Town Clerk be authorized to sell landfill tickets, that are numbered, specially printed and numbered with some being for 20 cubic yards at $13.00 per cubic yard to be sold at $260.00 per ticket that is for burnable materials that come in loose in pickup trucks and stake bodies whatever else and also be able to sell the tickets for non-burnables still at $9.00 per cubic yards times 20 cubic yards or $180.00 per ticket which is similar to what she was doing until the Board authorized all the money to be taken into the landfill. I would propose further that the number of the ticket, the numbers punched on the ticket and the license plate number of each vehicle be recorded by landfill employees at the time of each visit, so we will have some kind of check at the landfill that X truck came in and we saw that there was six cubic yards we punched six and write it all in. In the case of the $13.00 ticket, 25% of the revenues should be placed in the landfill closure reserve, that would be the burnables and that would give us the same percentages as the $2.00 bag the 50 cents the balance to be used to pay ARRA that is the Resource Recovery for the burning and then the operation and maintenance in the case of the $9.00 ticket a third to go to O&M as it has been previously and 2/3 for the landfill closure and until such time as new tickets are available which could take a week to ten days the landfill personnel would be authorized to receive payment in cash or check Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion held - 1992 Landfill Stickers...coupon will be placed in paper so stickers can be obtained by mail... Attorney Dusek-Part of what is going on at the landfill will be as of next week it is conceivable that you could receive solid waste from other communities which is non-processable and which is assessed a rate of $2.50 higher than what your own residents would pay per cubic yard. The concern I have insofar in dealing with a municipality is not a problem because it would be a billing type format on the basis of a thirty day turnaround, but for private commercial haulers they will have to come in and get permitted in some fashion in accordance with our Town Law that we currently have on the books, I have reviewed the format that Darleen has and they will also have to pay in advance like everybody else for the disposal. The coupons that you just referred to I do not believe would have the proper monitory amounts... Supervisor Borgos- We need tickets that could be sold for $11.50 per cubic yards, for the non burnable items coming from other towns there is a $11.00 per cubic yard charge because they are from out of town instead of the city or the town there is a .50 administrative fee. So 50 cents will go to the general town fund for administration and the legal services, you get the $9.00 that we have been getting from our own people plus an additional fee of $2.00 because the people of Queensbury and Glens Falls have spent the money over the years for the compactor and the other equipment. Councilman Monahan-How would that be divided for the closure fund? Supervisor Borgos-Three dollars would still go to operations, $8.00 toward closure and .50 to administration. Councilman Monahan-Questioned if a municipality could buy the tickets and sell them to their haulers, so the haulers would not have to come here? Supervisor Borgos-Provided that the municipality would pay upfront... Attorney Dusek-No legal problem with that... Discussion held regarding by-pass...out of town only charge...11.50 per cubic yard...others go back to $9.00 charge...DEC has given a by-pass of only 10 days...Attorney Dusek-asked that it be checked if the County Flow Control Law will allow the by-pass time... RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 632, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously approved a form entitled, "Petition for a Change of Zone" for rezoning matters, and has directed that the same be used for rezoning requests, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has recommended that any and all applications for rezoning must first go to the Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations regarding the same, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will then review the Zoning Applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that the following application be submitted to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury for report and recommendation: Guido Passarelli, Tax Map No. 125-1-30.1, Herald Square, South side of Luzerne Road, Queensbury, New York Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES : None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN : Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 633, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Stephen Borgos RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss backgrounds of individuals and identifications of individuals and matters leading to the appointment of. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 634,1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adjourns its executive session and moves back into regular seSSIOn. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 635, 1991 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Marilyn Potenza WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan This is dealing with the matter of the Committee to address the situation of the Closing of the Wilton Developmental Disabilities office and appointing the committee in accordance with resolution no. 597 of 1991, of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, the Town Board hereby RESOLVES, to appoint the following individuals to serve on this committee: from Ward I. John McCormack-83 McCormack Drive Jim Farrell - 56 McCormack Drive Betty Duval - 6 Equinox Drive from Ward II. Sharon Getman - 40 Twicwood Lane Pete Tarana - 6 Cedarwood Drive Kathy Coughlin- 27 Twicwood Lane with an alternate to be: Frank Perkheim - 6 Cedarwood Lane from Ward III. Dorothea McMillen - 27 Moorwood Drive Chris Vasiliou - 14 Stone Pine Lane Maurice Frasier - 24 Buena Vista from Ward IV. John Cordes - 36 Clark Street Ernest LaVine - 24 Lupine Lane (one vacancy to be filled) there is yet to be located and appointed a chairman of this group. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos NOES: None ABSENT: None Supervisor Borgos-For the record we would urge as soon as we have a chairman in the next day or two that they meet with Wilton... Councilman Potenza-For the record as of last nights meeting it was understood that the committee and the Chairperson and Mr. Donahue will be effective as of Monday... On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury