Loading...
1992-05-18 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 18,1992 7:00 P.M. MTG#49 RES. 280-293 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT, SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN, COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ, COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO, COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER, COUNCILMAN TOWN OFFICIALS LEE YORK, KATHLEEN KATHE, PAT CRAYFORD, TED TURNER, DAVE HATIN, RALPH VANDUSEN PRESS G. F. POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN CAIMANO PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 7:01 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-I'm suppose to check if this was properly advertised. Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell-Yes, it was. Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to declare the hearing open. This is a public hearing on several changes in the zoning ordinance. Attorney Dusek-I can outline it briefly if you like. Supervisor Brandt-Please do. Attorney Dusek-What has been propose and is before the Board is a Local Law which would amend, the zoning ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and it would amend it in a few different places. The first area that it would amend is the definition of subdivision. It would say, a subdivision of land into two parcels, basically it describes the subdivision as it always has. but then an exception has been added which says, a subdivision of land into two parcels located out of a critical environmental area that complies with the zoning ordinance in all other respects, requires no new streets nor the creation or extension of improvements, districts such as water, sewer, drainage, will not be considered a subdivision. What in essence this does is, those special types of subdivisions would no longer need to come to the Planning Board for approval under this amendment to the zoning ordinance, but, it's very restrictive in terms of what lots are allowed. In addition to that change, another change is being proposed to the zoning ordinance dealing with swimming pools. Basically the full law set forth in the local law, but the amendment actually concerns more than anything else, above ground swimming pools. Saying, that when you have an above ground swimming pool it won't be necessary to enclose it by a fence as long as there is a distance between the top rail of the swimming pool and the ground or the grade of four feet, I'm sorry, at least forty six inches, so two inches less than four feet. In addition, it's making a slight change for in-ground swimming pools to indicate that the traditional four foot fence may also be put not just around the pool itself, but you could enclose the whole backyard with the fence and that would satisfy the zoning ordinance. Finally, the last change that is being proposed is a part of three separate changes basically to the ordinance. The ordinance previously required fences over three foot in height, said that no fence could be erected over three feet in height within twenty feet of any property line. That height is being changed to four feet instead of three feet at the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator. I guess it's a practical situation more than anything else. Supervisor Brandt -So on this propose law the public hearing is now opened. Anybody that would like to speak to the Board about any part of that law your welcome to do so right now. Come on up, use the microphone so we can create a public record, tell us who you are, tell us what you think. Mr. Schroeder-What happens to the existing fences that are there today? Attorney Dusek-The law actually in terms of the fencing, is giving you a break, so to speak. It traditionally allowed up to three foot, you'll now be able to put up the four foot. So if you have a three foot fence that will be fine, it's the four foot fence they are allowing twenty feet off the property line. This is not, though the fencing for the pool, this is just ordinary fencing for a backyard. In other words, you'll now be able to go up to four feet instead of three. It's my understanding, the fencing required for pools has always been four feet, so there won't be any change in that. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else? Councilman Goetz-I'd like to hear from the staff on the definition of subdivisions because we've had input from them, I think we need to hear that. So could the staff that's given us the input put that on the record for the public hearing? Lee York-Senior Planner. I've provided the Board with some comments on the two lot subdivision. Basically my concern was, I think first, I submitted some suggestions on the propose change. I basically outlined in the past why two lot subdivisions or four lot subdivisions at that time were decided to have some review. There were concerns at that time in 1987 and 1988, that the minor subdivisions were creating haphazard development in accompanying drainage and traffic problems. Because of the review process that had been instituted and that I had seen, we had been able to acquire some drainage easements that successfully negated a lot of problems for the Town and also look at better traffic routing because of review of these minor subdivisions. At any rate, I also stated that if we didn't review subdivisions, we would have no mechanism to collect our recreation fees. Another concern is that we mayor there may be created substandard lots because of the non-review of subdivisions. In fact, I had a case in point that came before the Planning Board, in fact it was a three lot subdivision that just last week had to be reduced to a two lot subdivision because of the very steep slopes and the inability to put a septic system on that particular lot. So in fact, there are some considerations as far as creating unbuildable lots which I realize may not be within the town realm of policing everything, but I just want you to be aware of that. Also, if you look at having two lot subdivisions outside of the AP A jurisdiction and then reviewing two lot subdivisions in the APAjurisdiction or in critical environmental areas, your creating a conflict within the ordinance, that's going to be difficult for the staff to keep track of at times. Basically those were my comments and then after, that I did send some suggestions to the Town Board about another mechanism that you might want to consider in taking care of what you perceive is this problem. Councilman Goetz-Was that a one step review? Mrs. Y ork- What my suggestions were, were a modification of our subdivision ordinance to basically have a minor subdivision for residential lots only. Basically have it be a one step review process with a lot of the purpose indicating that it would have, it would be considered a minor subdivision along the lines of thinking of this original subdivision definition but, that it would have limited criteria. For example, you would not have to do ten foot contours a hundred feet off site you could do ten foot contours instead of two foot contours. An applicant wouldn't have to have a grading and erosion control plan that was done by a licensed landscape architect you could just conform to the erosion and grading control indicated in Section 179-60 of our ordinance. Things like that would minimize the cost, but still provide a review for the individual and for the Town. Councilman Goetz-In one of your memos, you also mentioned that lot width that we require on arterial roads which has caused problems. Mrs. York-My suggestion was and maybe there is some other people here that would like to address that. I think that when we created the double the lot width alternative, it was a very positive thing and has been a very positive thing for traffic management in the Town. However, for people trying to create these two lot subdivisions it has been hell because a lot of them don't have that much road frontage. A way to potentially accommodate the philosophy of that and yet allow them to subdivide maybe to consider having one single access point providing two driveways to two separate lots. It would meet the goal of that section of the ordinance in only allowing one access way and still allow these people to subdivide and give land to their children without the three hundred feet per lot road frontage required on some arterials. Councilman Goetz-So the goal would be to make it easier for people, but still keep the basic philosophy? Mrs. York-The intent of the ordinance. Councilman Goetz-It has caused some trouble, you know I've seen it on the Zoning Board where people haven't been allowed to do things that might of made sense if it was a lesser requirement. Supervisor Brandt-Lee, do I remember in your memos that in a minor subdivision, the one step process would still be handled by the Planning Board? Mrs. York-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Why couldn't we do that with staff? Mrs. York-Well, I think that's a legal question. I don't know if the Planning Board can give their authority to staff people or if the Town Board would have to specifically indicate that. Attorney Dusek-Under the way the Town Law, not the local Town Law, but the State Town Law that we are governed under, is set up in that once a matter is sent to the Planning Board, a subdivision matter, site plans, as soon as they are qualified as one of those, they have to go to the Planning Board. You cannot take them back from the Planning Board and give them to staff. There has been difficulties in the past in trying to set up other boards, agencies of review, to take the place of the Planning Board. That is essentially what you would want to do. There are two possibilities to deal with that, though, and maybe come up close to what you want. One way is to take the two lot subdivision or whatever number of lot of subdivision you want, presumably two lot out, but set up the criteria which is what this was an attempt to do, but maybe even set up more of a criteria and let somebody go down with a checklist to see if it qualifies, then if it doesn't, you might want to add more restrictions. Another possibility is to look into the possibility of superceding Town Law with the Municipal Home Rule Legislation. Those are always very tricky and a number of them have been shot down by the courts, but that is another possibility where you actually set up a discretionary review in the hands of the Planning Department as oppose to the Planning Board. But, the only thing there is, of course, you are putting a discretionary review in the hands of a department and taking it away from a seven member board which has it's own set of problems. Those are the only two ideas that I have on that, but to simply say, we're going to let the Planning Department do it, and the Planning Board not do it you really can't under the current Town Law. Some other thing would have to be done. Councilman Monahan-Paul, can the Planning Board itself give up that power? Attorney Dusek-No. Councilman Monahan-They can't say we're not going to review two lot subdivisions? Attorney Dusek-No. It's the way the law is set up. It has to at least run through their Board, in other words, they could rely heavily on staff. In fact, that was a procedure that was in fact, adopted over this past year, where staff was reviewing them and they had an expedited review. I think Mr. Caimano maybe somewhat familiar with that process, that was another attempt to deal with this same type of issue. Councilman Caimano- That's how I thought this was going to end up anyway. I thought this was going to be a checklist item which was rubber stamped, if you will, by the Planning Board. Always with the idea that the Planning Board had oversight on the whole thing and could at any given time, grab one and go through the full process. Councilman Monahan-The way this is set up, there is no review at all, I'm saying what's in front of us tonight. Councilman Goetz-The definitions, I don't have it in front of me. I know it's subdivision, but would we have to get into minor and major subdivision definitions? Mrs. York-In the propose definition that your using now, please Paul step in at any time. What it is, is the definition with an exclusion for that two lot subdivision saying basically a subdivision that the Town reviews or we have any interest in, as three lots or more. Supervisor Brandt-What we're saying, it would no more be a subdivision and would not come to the Planning Board. All of things that you pointed out, could be handled by staff. Mrs. Y ork- They could be. Councilman Monahan-They wouldn't have to be Mike with the way this is written, nobody would be reviewing it at all, people would just go and do it. Supervisor Brandt-We could certainly make provisions within our rules and regulations to require a staff review, couldn't we? Councilman Monahan-Well you would have to alter this. Attorney Dusek-In order to do that it would have to be strictly ministerial and no discretion. In other words, it's just a matter of, are all these items there and if they are there, I think it's an automatic approval. I think you could set up something of that nature. Supervisor Brandt -One other weakness, I see in what's proposed is, if someone has a large parcel of land and they do a two lot subdivision and they take one acre off of forty acres and then later on they can do it again, and later on they do it again, and later on they do it again, somehow we've got to restrict that because then that defects the whole subdivision ordinance. Councilman Tucker-Just put in here, Mr. Chairman, that it can happen but once. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with that. Mrs. Y ork- The Adirondack Park Agency has a clause in their legislation that allows for a division of land to provide for a family member. You are limited in doing that to once in every three years. That kind of situation might also take care of it if that is a concern. Supervisor Brandt-The problem with that is, today's family definition might be pretty broad. Mrs. York-That's true. Supervisor Brandt -So I think, you know let it be the whole family of man kind, but once though. Thank you very much, Lee. Pat, do you have comment? Mrs. Crayford-Yes, I do. Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator. You might want to consider limiting this to parcels of five acres or less and parcels on streets, not collector or arterial such as your streets Main, Indiana, Big Bay, Big Boom. Supervisor Brandt-However, in the collector streets, you could restrict it to one driveway, couldn't you? Mrs. Crayford-Sure. But, I thought if you really wanted to make this a restrictive ordinance, you could limit it to the five acres. Supervisor Brandt-Any other comments or questions here? Charlie Adamson-Assembly Point. I just had a question Mike. The fences, I think Paul said that the four foot applies to front and side yard with nothing higher within twenty feet of the boundaries. Attorney Dusek -Correct. Mr. Adamson-And it does not apply to the backyard? Attorney Dusek-Correct. The backyard would still be able to have a six foot fence. Mr. Adamson-The side yards could have a six foot fence after you meet the twenty foot limit? Attorney Dusek-Pat would know that better than I would. Mrs. Crayford- The sideyards would not be allowed six feet. The side yards are four feet. Mr. Adamson-Well that's why I was raising the question cause Paul said, I thought it was side and front yards within twenty feet of the sideline? Mrs. Crayford-It's twenty feet from the front property line and that extends to the back of the house four feet. Then at the back of the house begins six feet, it's confusing. Councilman Goetz-Pat, isn't that something that we're going to work on because it is confusing? Mrs. Crayford-Definitely. Attorney Dusek-I think what it is there, are two separate sections here and that's maybe causing the confusion. There is one section that is being amended that says, no fence in height over four feet will be erected or maintained within twenty feet of the property line, that's one section. There is another section that is being amended that says, no fence in height over ...feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any front or side yard, so from the back it will be six. In other words, everything is going to stay the same as it always was. There is six feet in the back, it used to be three feet every where else, now it will be four, you can go up till four in the front. Your gaining a foot here on the side and the front over what you used to have. Councilman Monahan-Between what your saying and Pat's saying, I'm really confused now. It sounds like, if your on the side, I've got a square lot, front and back, we know what we're doing, side lot it sounds like Pat is saying, that you can be four feet on the side, only four feet on the side until you come to the rear line of your house itself and then you can go to six feet. We've got it divided a staggered fence on the side yard. Attorney Dusek-Right. Councilman Monahan-Where does that say that more concisely in this ordinance? Cause boy, this doesn't sound it here. Councilman Goetz-It's the section that needs work. Attorney Dusek-If you consider the fact that the front yard is considered everything from the front of the building over and the side yard is only considered on the side of the house then the rear yard starts the back of the house and goes back. In terms of defining the terms, if you think in terms of that, then that would explain what fences you could have where. Councilman Tucker-Does that say that in the ordinance? Attorney Dusek-Yes. Councilman Tucker-It does say from the back of the house? Councilman Monahan-People are interpreting it that way. Councilman Tucker-Hold it a second. I got into a lot of trouble because of that. Wouldn't it be very simple to put it right in there so when a jerk like me picks up the book and reads it, he knows what he's reading. Councilman Monahan-Not only that Pliney, but I think it should have a diagram of a house on a lot that says, this is the front, this is the side. Councilman Tucker-I can figure that out. Councilman Monahan-I'm talking about, if your going to go from four to six on a side yard, I'm talking about. Mrs. Crayford- The committee that is currently working to revise sections of the ordinance is also going to revise the wording in the fence ordinance, it will be taken care of. Councilman Goetz-Pat, the reason we went from three to four feet, isn't it because that's a standard size of a fence? Mrs. Crayford-Yes, it is. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak on these proposed changes? Then I will declare the public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:20 P.M. DISCUSSION HELD Attorney Dusek-Noted that the Warren County Planning Board won't be able to consider this matter until May 20th, 1992 and that action cannot be taken until after the Warren County Planning Board has given their recommendation. Attorney Dusek recommended to hold this matter for one week until the decision has been made. After further discussion it was the consensus of the Town Board to keep the subdivision section as a ministerial act, a checklist in which criteria is listed for a two lot subdivision which no longer comes before the Planning Board. If the Building and Codes Administrator and Zoning Administrator go through the checklist and it doesn't pass then it goes back to the Planning Board. Mr. Hatin recommended that this be directed to the new person who would be in charge of the Building and Zoning Departments. HEARING - FLYNN PROPERTY Attorney Dusek-On May 12th, the Town Board adopted a resolution making a determination with reference to certain property over on Mannis Road that a unsafe structure existed and that there was a need for fencing in the area to make it safe. The resolution was relatively lengthy, but a copy of it was served upon the Attorney for Mr. Flynn, Mr. Sterling Goodspeed. I have an affidavit of service here indicating on May 13th, also indicating personal service. Then on May 14th, I have a statement it's not an affidavit because it hasn't been sworn to, indicating service on John Flynn on May 14th. This evening the objective before the Board, if you will is to, I think Mr. Hatin should probably give a report concerning the property while Mr. Flynn is present, if he is present or his Attorney. Then to hear from Mr. Flynn, then you can make a decision as to whether or not your going to require a fence, how much time to require that, if that's your decision and whether or not the Town will do it, if Mr. Flynn doesn't. So that's kind of where your at. Supervisor Brandt-You want to lead us right on through? Mr. Hatin-Do you want a brief statement on what's been transpired over the last few days? Supervisor Brandt-Sure, please. Mr. Hatin-Ijust visited the property about half an hour ago or forty five minutes ago. The fence on the Mannis Road side was established in it's rickety condition and basically does not stop anyone from entering the property. In fact, there are two places where a person could walk right through the fence with no problem at all. The fence on the lakeside does not appear to have been altered at all, if it was, then it fell back down again. So basically the pictures, I showed the Board the another night is pretty much it's present condition other than the fences standing up on the Mannis Road side, but does not preclude somebody from entering the property and it does have a couple signs, no trespassing signs posted on it. Attorney Dusek-Mr. Hatin, can you just state for the record what your concern is about people entering the property? Mr. Hatin-My biggest concern is that children, especially with the sununer approaching, will use this as a place to play. Dirt naturally attracts children, it look nice to climb on. The wall has collapsed as of two years ago this July or August and it continues to move, although not at a fast pace, it is continuing to roll under and start to move. If it should collapse while somebody is on that property, you'll never know that the people were there, they will be buried alive or seriously injured if they are on top of the pile. This was also brought to my attention by a letter from an engineer for the insurance company following basically, a complaint about this condition. Supervisor Brandt-Is there an Attorney here for the Flynns or are the Flynns here and any of them present tonight? Attorney Dusek-If the Board would like, maybe you could wait a half hour to see if they do show up? Supervisor Brandt -Sure, we can leave it open and move on with some other things in the mean time. HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 280, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of April 27th 29th, 1992 and May 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th, 1992. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: All Those in Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None Abstain: (May 1st, Supervisor Brandt, Councilman Tucker) DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE Correction to May 4th, 1992 minutes. Page 7, Discussion Hovey Pond. Supervisor Brandt-second line should read; Econ's representatives were on the site for an inspection. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1992 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 281, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Susan Goetz. WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1992 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1992 budget: ASSESSOR: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1355-4140 001-1355-4410 $ 2,000.00 (Travel) (Gasoline) 001-1355-4400 001-1355-4110 $ 300.00 (Misc. Contractual) (Vehicle Repair & Maintenance) HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-8540-4400 (Drainage) 001-8540-2001 (Equipment) $ 3,832.60 Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS TO SELL 1988 DODGE SEDAN RESOLUTION NO. 282, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Pliney Tucker. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of selling, by advertisement for and receipt of bids, a 1988 Dodge - 600 Series K Car, with Town rights to turn down all bids, and "AS IS", NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an advertisement for bids for the said 1988 Dodge - 600 Series K Car, be published in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indicate that bids will be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury at any time until, but not later than June 1st, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.m. by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement shall indicate that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall have the right, at its discretion, to reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids as provided by the laws of the State of New York, and that if a bid is accepted, that full payment for the automobile must be made in cash or certified check or bank cashier's check and delivery must be taken within 10 days of the opening of bids, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk or her designated Deputy, is hereby authorized to open all bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at 2:05 p.m., June 1st, 1992, read the same aloud and make record of the same as is customarily done, and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBSCRIPTION FOR LAW BOOKS RESOLUTION NO. 283, 92, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Susan Goetz. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously authorized the purchase of five (5) sets of the Town Law, on April 29, 1992, and WHEREAS, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing has advised that a subscription has been entered to allow the Town to automatically receive any future shipments for New York CLS Volumes 34 and 34A as they are published, on 30-day approval, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to confirm said subscription with Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the form necessary to accept the subscription referenced above, and further authorizes that said subscription be paid for from the Books, Publications & Subscriptions Account No.: 01-1420-4050. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL FROM RECREATION ASSESSMENT RESERVE FUND #61 RESOLUTION NO. 284, 92, Introduced by Mr. Michel Brandt who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Susan Goetz. WHEREAS, the Town has received from Finch Pruyn & Co., Inc., the free use of labor and machinery to help assist in the grading and development of Hovey Pond Park, and WHEREAS, the use of the free equipment and labor will result in significant savings to the Town in the development of the Hovey Pond Park project, but some monies are also needed to fund materials and supply additional labor in conjunction with the labor and equipment furnished by Finch Pruyn & Co., Inc., and WHEREAS, as an interim measure, the Town wishes to provide limited funding to pay for the additional labor and material and to develop the site to a certain extent, such that some regrading is accomplished and water drainage altered, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund (Fund #61) and a Hovey Pond Capital Project Fund #82, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of transferring $13,500.00 from the aforesaid Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund #61 into the Hovey Pond Capital Project Fund #82 to pay for the aforesaid additional labor and materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes a withdrawal and expenditure from the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund #61 in the total amount of $13,500.00 to be deposited in the Hovey Pond Capital Project Fund #82 to pay for the expenses and improvements to be made in conjunction with the free labor and equipment furnished by Finch Pruyn & Co., Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby further finds that the withdrawal and expenditure for the previously identified recreation project and improvements at Hovey Pond Park is an expenditure for improvements or items of equipment for which the Reserve Fund #61 was established, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the sum of $13,500.00 amount transferred from the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund #61 shall be used to improve Hovey Pond Park and that it will generally serve the Town's residential neighborhoods, subdivisions, and multi-family dwellings, the developers of which have heretofore contributed fees in lieu of developing recreational areas, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby further directs that in the event that any funds are remaining in said Hovey Pond Capital Project Fund after completion of the project or in the event that said project is not undertaken, the money in the said account shall be returned to the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund #61, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in accordance with the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, this resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Town Law, and the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law, indicating that this resolution is subject to a permissive referendum. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE Supervisor Brandt-Noted that the agenda was moved up when Finch and Pruyn offered their machines and equipment and people. To take advantage of this, they didn't have time to move any money through the legal process to that account to cover some of the expenses. When money is moved to that project it is subject to a permissive referendum which you have to wait thirty days before the money is spent. Noted, they don't know how much is going to get done while they are there. When they see how much gets done, then they can make a plan and a budget and move on with it... Councilman Caimano noted he has received a call from Roger Marcy, from Queensbury Schools who has talked to his people and they are prepared to do the carpentry work that is necessary to make the time line for the historical people. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ROAD DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO. 285, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Michel Brandt. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of Lancestire Drive, offered for dedication by Michael 1. Vasiliou, 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 required 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 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 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 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE Councilman Tucker-Asked if there was anyone present representing Michael Vasiliou? Michael O'Connor-Law Firm of Little and O'Connor, representing the developer present and Mr. Vasiliou present. Councilman Tucker-Noted that he toured this road and found several lots below grade, asked if the lots will be brought up to grade? Mr. Vasiliou-Noted that the higher lots, the fill will be taken off and put into the lower lots to bring them up to grade. Attorney Dusek-Noted the certification on the subdivision map was not on the map, but a survey reading was in the abstract of title, noted he feels the Town is fully protected...Councilman Caimano stated it should be noted in the resolution that Paul Naylor, Superintendent of Highways and Tom Flaherty, Superintendent of the Water Department both concur in the acceptance of this. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF LANCESTIRE DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 286, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Susan Goetz. WHEREAS, Michael 1. Vasiliou has offered a deed to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury Lancestire Drive, which is more particularly described in the survey map presented at this meeting and the original deed being presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised that he has looked at Lancestire Drive and found it meets with the Town specifications and with his approval, therefore he recommends to the Town Board that the road be accepted with final approval, 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 road proposed for dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road 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 for dedication of the said road be and the same is hereby accepted and approved, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute, sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction, and that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed 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: Road Number: 481 Description: Woodmere Subdivision - West of Heresford Lane, Queensbury, New York (Connects to Heresford Lane in two places. ) Name: Lancestire Drive Feet: 1,315 Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CONCERNING BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW TERMS OF OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. 287, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established a five member Board of Assessment Review, and WHEREAS, since the time of the establishment of the five member Board of Assessment Review, members have resigned and/or have been appointed or reappointed, or new members appointed, and WHEREAS, it was recently brought to the attention of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury that some of the terms of current members of the current Board of Assessment Review are not staggered as required, so that only one term expires each year, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has advised that this situation should be addressed and has also provided the Town Board with copies of various resolutions and copies of the appointment cards, and offered certain advice concerning this matter, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, afterreview of the resolutions and appointment cards and discussion with the Town Attorney, directs and authorizes terms as follows: Term of Matthew Ludemann Term of Jane Carusone Term of Paul 1. Davidson - Term of C. Matthew Yasko Term of Dr. Charles Hauser Expires 9/30/93 Expires 9/30/94 Expires 9/30/95 Expires 9/30/96 Expires 9/30/92 and, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is authorized to notify the New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment of this resolution, and to take such other and further steps as may be necessary to indicate the authorized terms on the records of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None HEARING CONTINUED ON FLYNN PROPERTY Supervisor Brandt-Is there anyone here representing the Flynn's or are the Flynn's here themselves? Declared the public hearing on the Flynn's closed. Councilman Goetz-What's the next step? Attorney Dusek-At this point, your ready for a recommendation from Dave Hatin. Mr. Hatin-What I would recommend to the Board, that the two sides of the property be properly fenced possible by our maintenance department and that we purchase some adequate orange fencing that we normally use during most construction operations. I don't know cost. I didn't look into that today, I didn't even have a change to think about it, but that would be the most logical way to handle this. Attorney Dusek-If the Board wanted to you could give for instance, I think you could give the Flynn's so many hours to get a fence up of a suitable nature. If not, that would give Mr. Hatin time enough to go out and get the prices that he needs for the fences. Then he could report back to you on the selection of fence and the pricing so that you could pass on something that you know what the cost was. Supervisor Brandt-I visited that property on several occasions. I think the two sides your talking about is the lake side and the road side. Probably we have to go up the sides a little bit, I think. Mr. Hatin-We weren't sure how far we could go on private property with the neighbors and didn't know if they would give consent or not. Supervisor Brandt-We should look into that. I have to agree with you, I think it's a terrible hazard. I did go on the property and I'll tell you, you don't want to get near that wall because it could rupture anytime and if it did, it would bury you. I think we have a public obligation to fence it off. If the Town ends up getting stuck for the fence so be it, but I certainly want to be prepared to litigate that. Councilman Caimano-How much time do you think it will take you to get prices? Mr. Hatin-Wednesday morning, I can definitely work on that. Councilman Monahan-Dave, I'm concerned that, that orange construction fence isn't going to hold any kid back. Supervisor Brandt-It's got to be more than that. Mr. Hatin-I was thinking heavy plastic orange fence. Not similar to what was at Hovey Pond, the cloth. I was thinking the heavy plastic. I can tell you right now, I don't care what you put up there, if a person wants to get in, they will get in. Orange sticks out, it identifies it as a hazard. A person can walk around the fence, walk on the neighbors property and be right on the property, you can't stop it. Supervisor Brandt-Some of it's pretty rugged. It's a matter of putting in enough posts. Mr. Hatin- That's the thing, you have to put them every six feet or so or ten feet, whatever it takes. Supervisor Brandt-How long before we may be in litigation over this? Attorney Dusek-I just got a notice in the mail. There are several cases involved in this so it's not only the Town's case. The Town's case doesn't have a trial date yet, but the other case that is pending does have a trial date which was originally in May, but has been moved to September now. My idea here would be that the Town's case might be in a position to catch up and tried the same time that other case or shortly thereafter. The goal, of course, would be to have everything tried at once, but we'll have to see where we go during the course of the summer. Councilman Monahan-Paul, when it's such a hazard out there, is there no way of getting these court dates shoved up to recognize the fact that we've got such a hazard to the community out there on that piece of property? Attorney Dusek-Part of the problem is, that everybody is pointing the finger at everybody else in terms of whose responsibility it is, that's one of the problems. Supervisor Brandt-We ought to tell a Judge that it is dangerous. If kids go in there and play around, it could rupture the wall because it's a wooden structure, that is barely holding together and I don't know why. It could spring loose with just people playing around it. Councilman Monahan-Mike, it isn't only going on, on that piece of property, it puts the neighbors on each side in a terrible bind. Attorney Dusek-Another idea is, in addition to getting the fence put up, you can look at other mechanisms that you want to take, to address the situation and then try to make a recovery later. That is another possibility. Supervisor Brandt -First of all, we know that we have to have a fence from here to September, a good plastic fence with enough posts would do it in my estimation and some signs. If someone wants to get around, certainly they can, there is no question of that. Then, I think we have to hope that the courts see the wisdom of moving rapidly and getting on with it. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION CONCERNING FENCE ON FLYNN PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO. 288, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano To notify the Flynn's that they have 36 hours in which to erect a fence and if they don't, that the Town will buy the fence, put it up and assess it against their property as part of their taxes. Duly adopted this 18th of May, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSIONS PRESENT A TION WELCH PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Tim Welch, Welch Communications-Made a presentation to the Board in regard to a solid waste project for disposal of paper sludge in the Saratoga area. Requested support from the community in trying to make this solid waste project become a reality. PRESENTATION STAMBER ASSOCIATION Donna Dingman, President of Stamber Association-Made presentation to the Board regarding their company's service of utility bill reduction and energy management savings. CRANDALL LIBRARY Mark Lebowitz, Crandall Library. Presented copies to the Board with the revised legislation concerning the library district. Requested the Board to consider passage of the Home Rule Legislation Law. RESOLUTION REQUESTING ENACTMENT OF A SPECIAL LAW BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE RESOLUTION NO. 289, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mrs. Susan Goetz. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 9 of the Constitution of the State of New York, the Town of Queensbury may request the enactment of special legislation, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is specifically desirous of requesting enactment of a bill by the title of "An Act to Authorize the Establishment of a Public Library District for the Town of Moreau, in the County of Saratoga, the City of Glens Falls, in the County of Warren, and the Town of Queensbury, in the County of Warren", and WHEREAS, it is determined that a necessity exists for the enactment of such legislation and that the facts establishing the necessity are that the Town Board, as the local government, does not have the power to enact such legislation by Local Law, and WHEREAS, a Municipal Home Rule Request Form must be completed and the same has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, hereby, pursuant to Article 9 of the Constitution of the State of New York, requests the enactment of Senate Bill No. 7542, entitled "An Act to Authorize the Establishment of a Public Library District for the Town of Moreau, in the County of Saratoga, the City of Glens Falls, in the County of Warren, and the Town of Queensbury, in the County of Warren, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby declares that a necessity exists for the enactment of such legislation and that the facts establishing such necessity are that the local government does not have power to enact such legislation by Local Law, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury are hereby authorized to complete the Municipal Home Rule Request Form, which has been presented at this meeting, in a manner consistent with the terms and provisions of this Resolution and consistent with the vote taken thereon. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-Spoke to the Board about the new regulation from the State regarding lifeguards at all pools. Suggested to the Board the possibility of passing a resolution supporting motel owners regarding this situation. It was the decision of the Town Board to look into this further and address this at a later meeting. DISCUSSION AVIATION MALL Lou Gagliano representing Aviation Mall. Discussion held regarding the sale ofproperty...Councilman Goetz questioned the provision about the exchange of sand in lieu of money.. .Mr. Gagliano noted that they came before the Board last year and negotiated with the Town to purchase the vacant parcel to expand the shopping center that was approved by the Planning Board last January. The final contract was negotiated and approved by resolution by the Town Board last May of 1991. It basically called for us to pay the Town $100,000 and to provide 100,000 cubic yards of sandy loom sand from that hill when excavated to be delivered to a site of the Town's choice in the Town of Queensbury...Mr. Gagliano noted at that time the Highway Superintendent indicated that the sand could be used for the Town's purposes in sanding the roads... Supervisor Brandt questioned the payment of the $100,000...Mr. Gagliano noted it was structured at $50,000.00 at closing and $50,000.00 a year from closing. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE CONTRACT PYRAMID COMPANY RESOLUTION NO. 290, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt Authorizing Supervisor to execute contract with the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls on behalf of the Town with the approval of the closing date on or before January 20th, 1993. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Goetz-Noted that there is an opening on the Recreation Commission. Requested to have ad in the paper noting this vacancy....Councilman Goetz received letter from QEDC questioning the amount in the budget...Town Board to discuss this at the QEDC regular meeting...Councilman Goetz noted that a neighborhood meeting was held in South Queensbury about the sidewalk situation. Neighbors had indicated that they would have a volunteer committee that could possibly put in the sidewalks themselves...Councilman Goetz noted the permit process has been started with DOT, but volunteers have now said they cannot do the job... Councilman Goetz noted she told residents that this would have to be researched further. It was the decision of the Town Board to hold a special workshop regarding sidewalks with the date to be decided later. Supervisor Brandt-Noted he has received a request from the Planning Board to meet with the Town Board as soon as possible to discuss Diehl matters. A workshop was scheduled for May 26th, at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Tucker-Noted he has received a phone call from Jim Coughlin, Superintendent of Landfill regarding the contract for sludge coming from Lake George, stated that Mr. Coughlin is ready to go ahead...Attorney Dusek to have something ready regarding this matter by tomorrow. COMMUNICATIONS DOT Letter - Regarding Gurney Lane. Letter on file in Town Clerk's Office. MATTERS REQUESTED BY ATTORNEY Attorney Dusek-Spoke to the Town Board regarding the Peggy Ann Road Water District. Noted that the Town has a situation where the developer owes some funds on the contract. Noted he has met with the developers Attorney, Robert Stewart today. Stated the concern is that we thought we we're going to be able to come to terms with the proper numbers that were suppose to be used in connection with the calculations of the contract, but have not yet been able to reach a final conclusion as to what recommendation to make. Noted that there are a number of different ways that this could be calculated and there are other problems with the contract in addition to the calculations. Asked to have one more day in order to finish up the review on this...Town Board in agreement. Attorney Dusek-Received a letter from Jeffrey McMorris regarding the Flynn's property...Noted that he is now the Attorney who will be representing the Flynns. Read the following letter into the record: I have just received the above entitled file from Sterling Goodspeed, Esq., and will be representing the Flynns with regard to the Town. I understand that the Town Board will be discussing the matter at tonight's meeting. Due to a prior commitment, I cannot attend the meeting and wish this letter to express my client's position. The Flynns have erected a fence identical to fences used by the Town in similar situations to block access to the property. At some point in the last few weeks, someone, possibly another litigant, drove over the fence and knocked it down. The Flynns were just made aware of the problem and immediately began their efforts to replace the fence. As you can see from the enclosed photographs, the fence has been substantially restored. Mr. Flynn will be completing the restoration this week and we would certainly keep the Town informed of the progress. If you or the members of the Board have any specific concerns or questions, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Attorney Dusek-Presented photographs to Board members. Photographs taken on May 18th. OPEN FORUM 9: 15 P.M. Lillian Adamson-Spoke to the Town Board regarding grievance day. Questioned the Board about the form used for grievance day if the members of the Board of Assessment Review could fill in the portion for their disposition? Supervisor Brandt-Town Board to send letter to Board of Assessment Review requesting them to fill out this portion of the form. Mrs. Adamson-Asked the Town Board if the Board of Assessment Review is allowed to discuss a case that is presented on grievance day with the Town Assessor in the time that they are suppose to be making their decision? Stated if the case is discussed after grievance day with the Assessor she feels the person who has presented the case should be given the opportunity to be there to rebut. Attorney Dusek-Noted that if the Board wanted to pursue this he could look at the statue that sets up the Board and then render an opinion as to a logical way to perceive to set it up. Mrs. Adamson-Questioned the Town Attorney about the following statement, she received from the hearing officer. "I should note that whatever the final assessments were established to be after grievance or by hearing would have the same effect for purposes of comparison as if the Town had initially placed those assessments on the properties during it's 1987 revaluation of the Town." Asked the Town Attorney if he found this to be a correct legal statement? Attorney Dusek-Noted certainly they could be used as proof, but the problem you have is that they are still subject to attack in the event the decision was not the correct one for that particular case. Mrs. Adamson-Noted her concern that the team of assessors doing assessments around the lake are not going in houses even when invited in to do assessments. Spoke to the Board about the possibility of assessors signing and dating a card stating that they have been in the house.. .Mrs. Adamson noted her objection as a taxpayer to the spraying of chemicals on the Queensbury Central Firehouse lawn or on any other lawns in the Town...Noted she had talked to members of the fire company and they mentioned the possibility of the Town maintaining their lawns. Helen & Andrew Cordiale- Ward 4, Massachusetts Avenue, Queensbury. Requested that the Town Board consider enacting an ordinance concerning recreational fires...Asked Councilman Tucker to keep them informed on the progress of this matter... Questioned the Board if someone can burn rubbish in an outdoor fireplace? George Stec-Queensbury. Noted the State of New York has a permit system and the Town of Queensbury has an ordinance, which both are similar, with the exception the State Law burning of garbage, is a misdemeanor and the Town Law, it's a violation. Stated the State of New York has never required a permit for a recreational fire. Noted it should be addressed as to what constitutes a recreational fire. Karl Schroeder-54 Old Forge Road, Queensbury. Spoke to the Board about the illegal dumping of garbage on Old Forge Road. Questioned why the courts are being lenient with the fines? Mr. Stec-Noted the reason could be what section of the law the officer sited the individual. Mr. Schroeder-Spoke to the Board about his concern for the speed limit on Old Forge Road. Requested a three way stop sign on the corner of Lupine and Old Forge Roads. Presented pictures to board. George Stec-Butler Pond Road, Queensbury. Spoke to the Board regarding Traver Road. Requested that the Town Board request that the Highway Department bring this road up to standards...Town Board to look at this road on their annual road tour on May 21 st. John Salvador, Queensbury-Questioned the board on the status of the request for the abandonment of the road in his area. Attorney Dusek-Noted that he is still working on this. Will move this up on the priority list. Mr. Salvador-Questioned the Board on the library district. Asked if the library board is the proper organization to make public comment to. Supervisor Brandt-Noted if Mr. Salvador wanted to form an organization opposing the library district the Town would be willing to provide the facilities for both parties. Mr. Salvador-Questioned the Board on the purpose of the meeting with Lake George Park Commission regarding stormwater regulations. Supervisor Brandt-Noted it is an informational meeting for discussion of stormwater regulations. Mr. Salvador-Questioned the Board on property owners taking care of their own sidewalks. Supervisor Brandt-Noted the law has to be changed and that the Board is working on this, it's a complicated Issue. Mr. Salvador-Noted that the form used for grievance day does not satisfy his concerns. Has been trying with the Assessor's office since last October to get a meaningful approach for a fair assessment...Mr. Salvador spoke to the Board regarding an accident on Rte 9L. Noted that the fire department had washed down the road from a gasoline spill from a vehicle being overturned. Stated the next morning at his marina he had twenty boats engulfed in an oil slick.... Councilman Caimano-Noted that the answer to his question has already been started and will be addressed at the meeting for stormwater regulation. Mr. Salvador-Noted that on March 16th, he appeared before the Board with a proposal regarding waste utility. Noted he feels his proposal solves the problems regarding waste. Attorney Dusek-Noted that there are contracts that the Town has to deal with first before something can be done. Supervisor Brandt-Noted that he doesn't know the answer regarding this. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 10:30 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT RESOLUTION NO. 291, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Audit of Bills appearing Abstract May 18th, 1992 numbering 92194800 through 92222900 and totaling $200,012.19 is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None Abstain:Mr. Caimano (vendor #000127) Mrs. Monahan (vendor #00453 due to contractual relationship) RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 292, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters Executive Session to discuss one personnel matter, one litigation matter, and two matters of attorney/client privilege. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: All Those in Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 293, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session to enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: All Those In Favor: Ayes All Those Opposed: None Absent:None No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk, Town of Queensbury