Loading...
1993-05-17 TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 17,1993 7:00 p.m. MTG.#38 RES.293-303 BOH 17-18 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Pliney Tucker Attorney Paul Dusek TOWN BOARD ABSENT Councilman Nick Caimano PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN GOETZ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 293, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Department of Health. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL V ARIANCE- STEVEN AND KATHLEEN MURPHY NOTICE SHOWN Mr. David Hatin-Basically this is for a simple application before you what the Murphy's are requesting is a place to set the tank four feet from the foundation vs the required ten feet due to property line constraints. We have helped them with it and we see no other alternative this is about the only other alternative they have to place the septic tank in that location. Unless the Murphy's have anything else to add, I do not know whether they are here or not. Supervisor Brandt-Are the Murphy's here? Why don't you come up to the front table and talk to us. Councilman Tucker-Is this a new one or a replacement? Mr. Hatin-Replacement Councilman Tucker-The old one was where, right where this one is going? Mr. Hatin- To tell you the truth I am not exactly sure, perhaps Mrs. Murphy can answer that better. Mrs. Murphy-The new tank is going in approximately the same place within maybe three or four feet. Councilman Goetz-I noticed lets see here what this question was, about over paving, did I see that somewhere? Is this going to go where there is some paving already? Mrs. Murphy-Yes Mr. Hatin-It is going under the driveway. Councilman Goetz-And you just rip that up? Councilman Monahan-That is going to require a special top, Dave. Mr. Hatin-It is usually a heavier tank they put under there, but our ordinance does not address that. Councilman Monahan-Just the commercial ones? Mr. Hatin-No,just the seepage pits are the only things that our ordinance addresses that, and leach lines so the tanks it does not really address. Supervisor Brandt -So the rest of the system would be in compliance the only variation is the six foot vs ten foot, is that correct. Mr. Hatin- Yes, I said four feet it is actually... Supervisor Brandt-Where is this property? Mr. Hatin-It is on New Pine Street in South Queensbury. Councilman Monahan-Dave, can this have any impact on the neighbors septic system at all? Mr. Hatin-It shouldn't Betty, it is just a septic tank, everybody is on Town water. Councilman Monahan- I know that, I was just wondering if the septic system, if it would have any impact on .. Mr. Hatin-It should not affect them at all. I just made a mistake too, it is from the property line not the foundation... Supervisor Brandt -Since this is a public hearing I am going to open it to the public for any comments or input, is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak on this? Any other questions from the Board Members? I am going to close the public hearing. Thank you for commg over. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR STEVEN AND KATHLEEN MURPHY RESOLUTION NO. 17, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION, SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker I will make a motion to approve this septic variance application and this will be placed four feet from the property line so the variance is granted for six feet and it does not seem to be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of the Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town and we find that this variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the problem being an unnecessary hardship. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Attorney Dusek-Mrs. Goetz is it your, for the record, what you just dictated into the record is that the motion as opposed to the form motion then. Mrs. Goetz-Right RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 18, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board of Health hereby adjourns. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING-Revocable Permit to locate mobile homes outside of mobile home court-Glenn & Marilyn Gregory NOTICE SHOWN Attorney Dusek-The statue for the Town of Queensbury provides that under certain circumstances mobile homes may be placed outside of a mobile home park and the statute which I will read to you, just part of it, basically says, no mobile home shall be hereafter be parked or placed within the Town of Queensbury and outside a licensed mobile home court and occupied except as follows: 1. the Town Board may grant a temporary permit for a term of three months 2. the Town Board may grant a permit not to exceed one year if the owner of the land is planning to construct a dwelling house and he has got the mobile home on site 3. not withstanding everything else the Town Board can grant a mobile home permit to park a mobile home outside the park which is a revokable permit and which can only be granted if the testimony and proof before the board indicates that there is a hardship or an extenuating circumstance that would justify the granting of the permit in the face of when you normally do not allow this, so it is like a variance type of proceeding if you will from your normal regulations. My recommendation to the Board would be to listen to all the proof and determine whether or not you feel the hardship or extenuating circumstances have been shown and it is really quite similar to what the Zoning Board of Appeals might do in listening to a variance. Supervisor Brandt -Glen do you want to come up and talk to us about it, I am going to open the public hearing and start with your input. Mr. Glenn Gregory-What I am requesting to do locate two mobile homes on a one point seven acre lot on Saunders Road the reason being I want to put two there I am trying to build a retirement income. Right now the homes are located at a mobile home park and the lot rent in the park is getting so astounding, I just cannot afford it no longer. At present the lot rent is $255.00 a month the rent is going September 1st to $275.00, January 1st. to $300.00 per month. There is no longer low income housing situation in a mobile home park. I just cannot afford the rent a home there and pay the lot rent and like I say, I am trying to build a retirement income. I have several health problems I getting on in years and thinking about retiring before I am sixty two. Councilman Monahan-Glenn are you saying that you want to do one or two mobile homes. Mr. Gregory-Two. Councilman Monahan-Are they both, you have the description of the mobile home are they both a 1979. Mr. Gregory-No. The one that I have right now I want relocated which is vacant, it is a 1979 Shultz the other one I have in a park it a 1969-70 I want to do away with that one and get a newer model because I want to upgrade myself. Councilman Monahan-But temporarily you are talking about moving the 1969 or 70 into you do get a new one. Mr. Gregory-The 1979 I got right now ready to move. The future one probably later on this fall will be probably in the late 80's. Councilman Monahan-So, you are not asking to move the 1969 or 70 onto that lot? Mr. Gregory-No. They are too old. Councilman Monahan-That was what I was wondering, I was trying to get this straight in my head. Mr. Gregory-I do want the two homes there, one would be a 79 going on immediately and later this fall it would be about a late 80's model. Councilman Monahan-So you are asking right now for temporary permits for two mobile homes, can we do that Paul, because we do not have, Glen is asking to put two mobile homes but he does not have the second mobile home yet and he does not know what the year will be or anything. Can we do two at this time or does he have to make another application for that one? Attorney Dusek-The law does not really speak to that type in specifics, I think the concept is whether or not you are going to allow the two mobile homes on the land. I think if you granted him a revokable permit you could and if he did not place it within so long you could revoke it. I do not see anything there Betty,tthat would prohibit you from doing it. Councilman Monahan-No, I was wondering if we had to specify that it would be a certain year or younger or something like that you know. Attorney Dusek-The law does not require you to get into the age or the size of the mobile home. Councilman Monahan-Except there is Jim, there is a or Dave we do have something on the books or State Code or something don't we in as far as the age of mobile homes in this Town? Mr. Hatin- There was an amendment that was proposed several years ago that never got approved in the old Zoning Ordinance, that is what triggered all that, we went back and researched it and found that had never been voted on and approved. Councilman Tucker-Glenn is that lot located where the old garage is? Mr. Gregory-Yes. The old garage there is a cellar there a week this coming Saturday the cellar will be burnt with the Fire Company and buried. Councilman Tucker- Both of these are going to be rental properties for you? Mr. Gregory-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-This is a public hearing on this application is there anyone here that would like to speak on this matter? The application is to place two mobile homes on a lot in West Glens Falls on Saunders Road, anyone at all? Questions from the Board? Councilman Monahan-Dave how do these dimensions compare with what we require in a mobile home park? Mr. Hatin-For the lot itself? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Mr. Hatin-Most of the lots in a mobile home park the new one requires 5000 square feet per lot I believe, not positive of that most of the older parks have less than that, 2000 maybe 4000 if that. Mr. Martin-They are pretty small Betty Councilman Monahan-That is why we updated it, that is why I am not interested in the old one. Mr. Martin-The minimum lot size of mobile homes lots shall be a minimum of 6000 square feet in area so the minimum width of 55'. Councilman Monahan-So 6000 per square feet, Glenn how much would you have for each mobile home under your plan here? Mr. Gregory-104 x 208 Councilman Monahan-For one or two? Mr. Gregory-For one. Councilman Monahan-l 04 x208 Councilman Tucker-About one half acre. Supervisor Brandt-Any other questions? Councilman Goetz-I noticed you have a list here of your neighbors that do not oppose it? Mr. Gregory-Yes. Everyone on the street signed in favor of it. Supervisor Brandt-Any other comments anybody want to address this at all? I will close the public hearing. Councilman Tucker-I have a comment or a question for the Attorney. Our Resolution says a mobile home and he wants to put two have we got to change that to make it ... Attorney Dusek -Yes. If that is your inclination, you can grant just one if you wanted to or you can grant two or you can grant none. Mr. Gregory-Mr. Tucker, as I pointed out last ..1 did make a mistake on statement number 4 it should have said placing two mobile homes and it does say a mobile home but the map accompanying that does show two mobile homes with a garage, septic and the whole nine yards. Councilman Tucker-I know that you want to put two on there but our resolution if we pass it tonight if we want to pass it for two you have got to pass it to say two. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE TWO MOBILE HOMES OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR GLENN & MARILYN GREGORY RESOLUTION NO.: 294,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized pursuant to ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, Glenn & Marilyn Gregory have filed an application for two mobile homes outside a mobile home court, revocable permit in accordance with said ~1l3 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury to locate two mobile homes on property situated at Sanders Road, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing with regard to the aforesaid permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that a hardship or special circumstances have been been sufficiently proved for the following reasons: 1. There are other mobile homes in the area that are outside the park. 2. Other variances have been granted up there apparently for mobile homes to placed out in the park in that area. 3. That the character of the neighborhood is such that, to place a mobile home there seems to be a logical setting for a mobile home outside of a park in this particular are of town. 4. The personal hardships that have been stated by the applicant. The rent in the mobile home park as it stands now and is projected to be in the future is not affordable housing and too expensive for you to afford, and plus the fact that for a couple of health reasons and my age I am more or less forced into retirement where by business is going down the tubes and it is the only income I have will be my rentals. 5. Eleven people have signed a petition saying it was ok. 6. Noted that Mr. Gregory had fought a fire in West Glens and got himself burned to the point where he is very lucky to be alive, and I am sure that affects his health even today and I think that is a factor and should be noted. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the application complies with ~1l3 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury and authorizes the issuance of a revocable permit in accordance with the terms and provisions of ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPURCHASE OF CEMETERY LOTS RESOLUTION NO.: 295, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, there was previously a sale of certain cemetery lots in the Pine View Cemetery to Mrs. Nora Sowray, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Nora Sowray has indicated that she would like to sell the cemetery lots back to the Cemetery Commission if agreed upon by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and the said Cemetery Commission has requested approval from the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it has no objection and approves of the repurchase of the lots by the Cemetery Commission, in accordance with the terms and provisions of a memo from the Cemetery Commission dated May 12, 1993, and hereby further authorizes the Town Supervisor to arrange for the refund of the appropriate amount of monies paid and make such entries and adjustments to the books and records of the Town of Queensbury as may be necessary or appropriate. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Brandt-Why do we have legal authority here and do we have legal authority, I certainly am not opposed to it and I would lend my help to help solve the problem but I think there is a major question as to where under the law does the cemetery commission fit? Attorney Dusek-I agree with you Mike there is certainly a question and of course as you are aware that we are in the process of trying to untangle that web of matters. However, and I did, when I saw this come in I asked myself the same question I think somebody had asked me the same question as well perhaps even yourself. My thoughts on this are that because the cemetery commission and the Town Board are closely tied in terms of the funds for the cemetery even if there maybe some question as to authority there would be nothing improper or illegal and it probably at this point would be in fact, not probably I guess my opinion would be that its advisable that both agencies approve any refunds for now. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF A CORRECTION EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ACTIONS BY THE TOWN SUPERVISOR RESOLUTION NO.: 296, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, there previously was an easement and a road dedicated to the Town of Queensbury in the Cedar Court Subdivision, and WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the Town Board that apparently the easement on file at the Warren County Clerk's Office, as well as the easements on file with the Town of Queensbury do not contain an attached Schedule A description, and WHEREAS, the easement in question is that drainage easement off of Cedar Court Road in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute any and all documents that may be necessary to file a correction easement, which corrective document would attach a schedule of the description of the drainage easement off of Cedar Court Road, that was intended and purportedly given to the Town of Queensbury during 1991, and which is further described as a drainage easement off of Cedar Court Road. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Attorney Dusek-When the road dedication was accepted up on Cedar Court apparently the schedule to the easement was never attached to what was recorded and this is just an attempt to attach that schedule. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF SERVICES OF MBAlMUNICIPAL APPRAISAL AND REVALUATION COMPANY RESOLUTION NO.: 297, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is currently involved in an Article 7 Assessment Proceeding brought by the Petitioner, Regency Park Associates, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has recommended to the Town Board that an appraisal be obtained for the 1992 Tax Year, and WHEREAS, MBAlMunicipal Appraisal and Revaluation Company provided the previous appraisal for the Tax Year 1991, and has offered to provide an appraisal for the 1992 year for the fee of $1,750.00, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retention of the services of MBAlMunicipal Appraisal and Revaluation Company to provide a 1992 appraisal in connection with the above-referenced litigation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the costs of the appraisal shall be paid for from the appropriate account, with the understanding that 1/2 of the fee will be paid by the Queensbury Union Free School District, in accordance with an understanding previously reached. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Attorney Dusek-This is a resolution authorizing the retention of an appraisal company in connection with an article 7 proceeding that has been pending for a couple of years in the matter of Regency Park vs the Town of Queensbury. Supervisor Brandt-This does not come from the 91 reval. Attorney Dusek-No. There was a 91 action which you authorized the appraisal services for this is now the 92 action which it getting to the appraisal stage. Supervisor Brandt-You feel it is necessary to have...Attorney Dusek-You have to evaluate the second year. Councilman Tucker-It should be mentioned there is $1750.00 involved and the School System will come up with half of the cost. RESOLUTION APPOINTING SCOTT HARLICKER TO PERMANENT CIVIL SERVICE STATUS RESOLUTION NO.: 298, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has heretofore created the position of Planning Assistant, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury appointed Mr. Scott Harlicker, provisionally, to said position until such time as Civil Service offered an exam for said position, and WHEREAS, Mr. Scott Harlicker was among the candidates qualified as a result of said Civil Service examination for the Planning Assistant position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Mr. Scott Harlicker be given permanent status under the Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations of the State of New York, to the position of Planning Assistant, and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to complete any civil service forms that may be necessary to effectuate the terms and provisions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Mr. Martin-Mr. Harlicker placed 1st on the list with score of 93 and with that placement entitles him to permanent status. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 299,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: TOWN CLERK: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1410-4090 (Com. Expense) 001-1410-2001 (Misc. Equipment) $ 200.00 FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1410-4220 (Training) 001-1410-2001 (Misc. Equipment) $ 250.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Town Clerk noted this was a transfer of funds within the Town Clerk budget to pay for a new printer, the older machine quite. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 300, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: SUPERVISOR: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1990-4400 (Contingency) 001-6410-4400 (Publicity) $ 475.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Brandt-This is money to fix the Town sign at the corner of Quaker and Bay Road... RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY ESTATE OF DAMIEN 1. DELSIGNORE IS UNSAFE TAX MAP NO. 74-1-21 RESOLUTION NO. 301,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, Mr. David Hatin, of the Building & Code Emorcement Department of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has investigated and inspected certain property identified as West Mountain Road, Town of Queensbury, and bearing tax map no. 74-1-21, and WHEREAS, Mr. David Hatin advises the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that, in his opinion, the partially demolished structure on the property presents a hazard and a nuisance to the neighborhood and is unsafe to the general public and has asked the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to take action to have the property secured and/or demolished if the property owner fails to continue to demolish the structure, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, the Town Board may, by resolution, determine whether, in its opinion, the structure is unsafe and dangerous and thereafter order their repair or demolition and removal and further order that notice be served upon the owner or other certain persons interested in said property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, upon reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is of the opinion that the property and structures thereon, bearing tax map number 74-1-21, appear to be: 1. Presently unsafe and dangerous; 2. Potentially an object of attraction and danger to minors; and 3. Unfit for the purposes for which it may be lawfully used, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Director of Building & Codes be and hereby is authorized to serve a Notice upon the owners or representatives of the owners of said property and Mr. Wickham, a person claiming an interest in the property, said Notice being in substantially the form presented at this meeting and generally providing: 1. A description of the premises, 2. A statement of particulars in which said structure thereon appears to be unsafe and dangerous, as set forth in Mr. Hatin's verbal report as given and that Mr. Hatin will provide a letter. 3. The Town Board feels, based on current imormation, that the structure should be demolished, commencing within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, unless good cause is shown by the property owner or other interested persons whereupon the time shall be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, 4. Unless an emergency condition is demonstrated, the Code provides that repair work and/or demolition of said structure must be commenced in 30 days of receipt of this Notice and be completed within 60 days thereafter, unless good cause is shown by the property owner whereupon the time shall be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, 5. That a hearing before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in relation to the dangerous or unsafe condition of the property shall be held on June 14,1993, at 7:00 p.rn., in the Queensbury Activities Center, or not less than five (5) days from the date of service of this said Notice, whichever date if later, 6. That, at the hearing, the Town Board will hear from the property owner, representatives of the property owner and/or other interested persons, the said Town Board will also consider whether there is a clear and imminent danger to the life, safety or health of any person or property unless the building is immediately closed, repaired or demolished, as set forth herein, and whether to authorize the Director of Building & Codes to immediately repair, close or demolish the premises and thereafter assess any charges to the real property as per ~68-11 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. 7. In the event that there is neglect or refusal to comply with the order of this Board to demolish the structure located on said property, the Town Board is authorized to take action to have the property secured, repaired and/or demolished and to assess all expenses thereof against the real property on which it is located, and to institute special proceedings to collect the cost of said action, including legal expenses. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that service and filing of the Notice provided for herein shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano Discussion held before vote: Mr. David Hatin-Back in April of 1992 there was a fire at this house, at that time it was going through a sale and the person who owned the property had died. Since then an Executor of the Estate, there was a woman appointed for the estate to represent the estate, her husband filed the demolition permit and started demolition of the building apparently there has been some legal shanagans or whatever with this estate and has basically stopped the demolition of this. Paul and I talked to the Attorney representing the estate last week and told her that we want to pursue this because it has been almost nine months now and no action has been taken and the structure is starting to show signs of disrepair as well as it has been vacant quite a while and it could be an attractive nuisance. It sits at the intersection of West Mt. and Bonner Drive and Mountain View Lane. We have told her we are going to take this to the Town Board basically to start the time clock and she assured us that over the next 30 to 60 days it would probably be demolished but this is just in case this does not happen. The time clock is ticking on them to either do it or we will take it and bill it to the taxes at some point in time if the board wishes. (Showed the Board pictures of the house) ATTORNEY MATTERS Discussion held regarding-Applehouse Lane Drainage Problem Supervisor Brandt-We have three drainage problems..Applehouse Lane is one, apparently the Town has a legal opinion stated by Mr. Dusek several years ago that we have some obligation to maintain that drainage system. The problem is, the residents there find that the system that was built is using 12" pipe and its inadequate to handle the water flows. Someone has to go in there, put in larger pipes. Attorney Dusek-The first issue is what is causing the drainage problem, my recommendation would be for somebody to investigate the site and determine where the water is coming from and if in fact it is a Town problem. If it relates to the drainage facility put in by the Town then the Town has the authority to go in and fix it. Supervisor Brandt-I do not think there is any question about that, but I am not an engineer. There is another one in South Queensbury, Mr. Dufour brought it to my attention. In that area there is a road that at one time was a Town Road, we have looked at the State maps, there was a road called Rainville Avenue that teed into the Boulevard. In 1942-43 Rainville Avenue was being developed and there was correspondence with the State asking about the installation of a drainage system there. The state maps show lengths of where the pipes would be and all the elevations. That road became a County Road there is correspondence in the State file that shows that the Supervisor then of Queensbury had correspondence with the State where they were taking over that road and there was discussion to putting in a drainage system, no further records found. Out in that area there was a ground water table 5' above ground and it flowed through neighboring properties and toward Quaker Road and Boulevard, after a while the ground water behind his house in the area of the old Town Street, the surface water came down so the water to the west, where it was running reversed and started coming back toward Rainville Avenue. Now, there are three feet of standing water on the lot to the west but at Rainville Avenue it is dry. You can see where water has gone into the ground and apparently there has to be some kind of an old drain system in there or it couldn't work. There is no record of it, it looks like it has been covered over. Noted he will give all the records to the Town Attorney...Rainville Avenue was bought by the neighbors at tax sale, they do not want it, they are saying they will give it back to the Town and fix it. The question is do we have legal authority, do we have legal responsibility... PlNEWOOD HOLLOW DISCUSSION Attorney Dusek-This looks to be a natural drainage system, I spoke to the surveyor who was involved in the subdivision, apparently when they did that they incorporated the natural drainage patterns into the subdivision, the question arises why isn't it working now. We looked at it and found a couple of catch basins that are shown on the map were not installed in the subdivision we also find that the water does not travel much beyond its current location where it is pooling and we also found another area on the other side where there is a culvert that has been buried. We are trying to piece it together to find out 1. what is the Town's involvement if any, obviously Paul Naylor saw the buried culvert he figures he will probably dig it up to unblock it, the question is will that help. I have to call the surveyor again on that one to find out about the catch basins whether that was something that got modified with approvals or why they did not go in. This looks like a natural drainage over which the Town if it was going to look at a solution it might want to consider a district for that area. Supervisor Brandt - I have some imormation on that one, I inspected it during the run off and I saw a couple of things that I will compare notes with you. LEO LOBSTER DISCUSSION Councilman Tucker-Lighting-We have several white lights up there, recommended that they be changed to 250 high pressure sodium, and put one light on pole # 171 directly in front of the restaurant and see what that does... .total cost of new light $214.22 per year... 44. 84 bulb charge, questioned if they can change the bulbs and use the same fixture..1 am recommending that we try that...requested a resolution at next meeting SIGN ORDINANCE WORKSHOP Councilman Goetz-Requested a workshop on the sign ordinance... Set for June 10th at 7:00 P.M. FOR THE RECORD Councilman Tucker-I would like to put something on the record it is to do with the home that the Wilton people have chose on Big Boom Road. There are rumors flying around that its my brother that is selling the house, I do not have a brother. It is a second or third cousin that is selling the house and when I found out that he was selling the house to the State is when ...told him they were going to take it. Also the rumor is flying around that I worked a deal with the Town Assessor to raise all the assessment on the houses in that area down there so that my brother when he sold his house to the State could get a big chunk of money out of it. I want to make the record clear, it is a second or third cousin and I did not ask the Assessor to do anything the fact is the records will show that I voted against the reval 100%. Thank you. OPEN FORUM Mr. Myron Sweet-Farr Lane-Spoke to the Board regarding the location of the new extension to Farr Lane, noted it is not in alignment with the existing road it appears to be over on my side...(showed pictures to the Town Board) Discussion held-Mr. Martin-The new road when it came in to match up with Farr Lane is off set from the existing road it appears that the existing road is not centered in the right of way so when the new road comes in to match in with the existing road it is off set to his side probably 5' of paving an if you took the edge of the right of way it would be 8' into your planted lawn. I have asked Leon Steves to stake out where the edge of the pavement would be... Supervisor Brandt-We will try and get the surveyor and all the parties over there and see if we can straighten it out. (pictures on file) Mrs. Emily Akins-Spoke on the Hudson River Greenway-preservation of open space, preservation of farm land, support of public access opportunities, support of economic amenities and tourism, acknowledgement of the cultural and historical and educational resources of the greenway along the Hudson River.. .The Town of Queensbury is on the Hudson River but is not a designated greenway community, we believe that the Town Board should request that the State designate all communities north of the line in Cohoes up to and including Queensbury as part of the Hudson River Greenway. Also requested that the Town of Queensbury work with the neighboring communities along the Hudson River to encourage them to join with us in this effort. Supervisor Brandt-I do not want to tell the communities between Queensbury and Cohoes what to do on the Hudson River that is their business. I have contacted Town of Moreau, Town of Corinth, Town of Luzerne and held a meeting with them together with the State of New York Encon for this purpose and we attended in 1992 a hearing on this matter and we filed a letter asking for this, from International Paper in Corinth to land owned by Niagara Mohawk. We asked for help to purchase that land to keep it as productive land as far a forestry goes and as far as preserving the green belt. Ms. Akins-We would like the greenway from the Adirondack Park right on. Supervisor Brandt-Niagara Mohawk wants to sell the land...noted that there was a conservation trust from the Central part of the United States that was interested in this, they flew the whole thing, they came to the conclusion that they were too far stretched with their funds to put up the money for this project, they withdrew.. .there was a commitment from the Parks and Recreation for the south side of it, in Saratoga County and there is still an attempt ongoing to put funding together to do it on the north side. Ms. Akins-Questioned that if this went through it would help in the boat regulations on the Hudson... Supervisor Brandt-Emorcement of boat regulations is not part of this, that can be done in another matter. As far as preserving the land along the river, I think it is a must, the State does not know how to fund it. Ms. Akins-Spoke on using a Hotel tax to fund the project. Mr. Salvadore-Noted that the original concept was not a Hotel Tax but a real estate transfer tax... Ms. Akins-I wish you would think of it more seriously and try to get into it a little more. Supervisor Brandt-I do not know how to think of it more seriously, I worked hard on it...1 think it should be part of the Master Plan that the Town has, but how do you fund the purchase of private property that is a big question. Councilman Monahan-Spoke on the purchase of easements along the River, noted that she would review the imormation that Mrs. Akins gave to the Board... Mr. Akins-Spoke to the Board about streams that are being filled on the river in the Town of Queensbury, they offered to take the Supervisor to two sights... Supervisor Brandt-Noted one area was where a stump dump is, DEC is handling the permits... Mr. Akins-There is another one behind the Mobil Station by Exit 18... Supervisor Brandt-Talk to DEC they give the permits...noted that there are people that oppose the greenway laws. Mr. Daniel Olson-Chairman of the Queensbury Republican Committee-commented on article in the Post Star "town employees and their spouses should be prohibited from holding post on political committees" I have not heard of any problems or done illegally or wrong, if there has been something that has been done that is illegal, wrong, or improper I would like to know about it. I assume the Board is considering an amendment to their Ethics Law to restrict people who are employed by the Town or hold elected positions or appointed position or their spouses would not be allowed to serve on a political committee, would this limitation be also for brothers and sisters and other family members or non family members? The article referred to the Republican Committee as a mini labor union, I want to state and imorm you that the Town of Queensbury Republican Committee is not a union or a hiring hall, the Town Board does the hiring. The Republican Committee does not vote or recommend who the Board should hire. Recently there have been several large paying jobs filled in this Town, one the Assessor, Director of Budgets (Bookkeeper), Mr. Martins Position and Administrative Assistant to the Supervisor none of those positions were ever discussed or voted on or those people that were hired were never recommended to the Town that they be hired. The Republican Committee does not get involved in situations, the main function of any political committee if there is a vacancy in an elected position at the Town or County level the committee makes recommendations to the Town Board who make the appointments subject to an election, that is the only recommendations that the pollical committee make on hiring. Noted that Mrs. Goetz, asked an employee of the Town and a person who serves on the Zoning Board of Appeals if she could use their names on her committee of vacancies, I do not have a problem with that, I do not have a problem with the way the system works today. Mr. Brandt has a quote that he does not like politicians seeking political support from a committee filled with Town workers. I did a survey of the committee of 36 people noting the variety that the committee holds...noted that the nine employees including elected and appointed officials are not the majority of the committee... Councilman Goetz-I never said anything about illegal acts Mr. Olson-I put that in, that was not in the paper. Councilman Goetz-I said it was perceived as a labor union and I do not feel that the committee has anything to do with the hiring I think it is activities after people are hired, it is more like a lobbying type of an effort. Your question about was it my intent to extend it beyond the spouse, a. I would like to say that I do not even know if the spouse connotation would be legal and I think Paul Dusek is looking into that and I did not intend it to be extended to anymore family members than a spouse. I did see problems two years ago, when you get into running for government you kind of naive in some ways and I think in the news paper it said something about they thought this might be sour grapes because I had not been endorsed by the party. I was not even endorsed when I ran before so to me that was not a big item. Councilman Tucker-The night of the nominations two people outside of Ward 4 had proxy's and determined who was going to be endorsed in Ward 4 do you think that is good politics? Lynn Potenza and Ronald Montesi both had proxy's and both were representing people in Ward 4. Mr. Olson-The political committee in the Town is only part of the County Committee that is the rules of the County...the town could have different rules, we are amending the bi laws of the Town ... Councilman Tucker-Sue and I were both at a meeting one night when the Highway Supt. Mr. Naylor, made the statement that people that were donating, or doing business with him and were donating money to the Republican Committee he wanted that money spent on people that supported the committee, that supported the people chosen by the committee... Mr. Olson-I would have to review the minutes... Councilman Tucker-I do not know whether you know it or not but when Sue and I ran the last time both of us were on the outs with the committee, because we would not endorse Mr. Borgos I believe you asked me the same question whether I would endorse the gentlemen you had chose or the committee had chosen and I told you I couldn't. Maybe I am naevi but I think that is a little bit of politics. Mr. Olson-You have a right to your own opinion. Supervisor Brandt -You addressed me on some of these matters, first of all I was a committeemen on the Democratic Committee I offered my resignation by letter to the Democrats I think in February or March of last year after I was elected apparently they have not accepted it but it is standing they hold the letter and I hope they do accept it. I do not think I should be on their committee while I am an office holder, that is my personnel choice, it is purely personnel. As far as what is being proposed in this law, there has been a general dialogue where we have been talking about what things could improve in the political system, I do not think we are talking about abuses in Queensbury anymore than any other community and we generally think that it might be beneficial if people who sell products to the Town of Queensbury not be, make it illegal for anyone to solicit them for campaign contributions that is any employees of the Town. I think that is a reform that has been adopted in other areas already, it does not matter if you are talking Democratic, Conservative, Republican or some other party. It just that you might get better purchasing practices if that were the case. Also the concept that we make it illegal to solicit town employees themselves for contributions to political parties, I think from again from employees, I do not think that has been a recent abuse but it was an abuse at one time here, I remember of it many years ago and I think it would be clean to just make that against the law. Would it improve the system to say that committeeman that is people who run the political system not be composed of employees of the government, I personally think that is a very fine idea whether you are talking Town government or County government or especially State government and Federal Government it seems to me that there is a perversion in our whole political system where the political parties are so dominant in the government that the government is run for the good of the political parties rather than for the public at large. I think you are seeing it right now in the Federal Government, we cannot find a way of cutting the budget, something very fundamentally has to change and this is pretty fundamental that is what is being proposed and I do not think it is being proposed to say that so and so did something wrong that is not it at all. What we are saying as a philosophy of design of government we think this could be an improvement and we were discussing that with the Town Attorney and we are saying these are the proposals of what we would like to change. As we conduct all of our business it is out in front of the public and it was done in a public forum and a newspaper reporter reported on that. That is my view on the matter and I speak for myself. Councilman Olson-The ultimate selection is by the voters out there too and they are voting today. Councilman Goetz-The percentage is not as important to me as the influence of the few that might be on the committee, because I can just speak from my own personnel experience with that particular committee is that I see that as a problem because they wield a lot of influence in the committee. Mr. Richard Nicholson-Noted he had gotten more signatures along Luzerne Road against the new assessmenLso far the assessment dept. was right there was one that would not sign the petition. Mr. Paul Davidson-I understand Jim and Paul made a site investigation on Pickle Hill Road, the Harris property I would like to hear their comments. Mr. Jim Martin-We witness someone splitting wood, it looked like commercial vehicle, was being repaired in the garage and there were a number of cars parked on the site and that is all I saw...did not enter the property. Mr. Davidson-Question the large pile oftires...1 would hope that if you get a chance and recognize that they are there because it may disappear and be underground shortly...1 would appreciate it if you would measure from the back of the garage around to where all the fill so that you can document it and send him a letter if he continues to bring fill in he is expanding a pre existing non comorming use. It is required that he has a variance to do such. I do not believe he has a sign permit for the sign at the end of Pickle Hill Road on the corner or Ridge requesting fill. These are two matters that can be addressed quickly. Mr. Martin-I have a meeting with Dave Hatin and Paul tomorrow at 2:00 where I will see all the imormation.. . Attorney Dusek-I should mention that the sight visit was not a planned site visit..noted met Dorothy in the parking lot and she expressed some concerns...we were trying to get a feeling for the complaints that we were getting. Mr. Martin-My approach is going to be in talking with Paul is that I want to establish what the parameters are by court action and whatever and where he exceeds them we will hold him to those parameters. Mr. John Schriner-Questioned the status of Dunhams Bay Road. Attorney Dusek-The Town has hired Leon Steves, Surveyor to review the road, we are now trying to coordinate myself, Leon Steves and you folks and go up and review where the road boundaries should be set in the case of a road by use and then discussing with the neighbors what the impacts will be to see if we can reach an agreement with everybody, that will be the next step. Supervisor Brandt-I would like to invite the other members of the Board to join me to go to Waste Management Institute at the State University of New York at Stony Brook that is on Long Island, this Friday where the institute has invited DEC and other interested parties to a review of all its findings concerning Rolite, we hope to find out that all the tests are negative and that Rolite is a safe product to use in the closure of the landfills and a source of income for the closure of our landfill. Mr. John Salvadore-re: Landfill closure-Questioned if the Board and Staff are aware of the landfill problems? Supervisor Brandt-The Board is and the Legal Dept. and the Planning Dept. knows some ofiLwe have a meeting Thursday with DEC ...noted that DEC is not allowing C&D from out of County... Mr. Salvadore-It is my opinion that we are in this situation because we failed to do an environmental review on the County closure program....three people came before the previous Board asking them to join us in a law suit over the Ft Ann Landfill, the complaint being no environmental review was done...we were turned down. Supervisor Brandt-If you put it in hard terms if we have to raise the tax to do this and did it in one year it would be a 600% increase in town taxes. Mr. Salvadore-We deserve the protection of SEQRA. Maybe that is the basis that you should get out of this problem and quite the fooling around with Rolite and C&D fill, lets do an environmental review that will tell us what the answer is, professionals will tell us not politicians, not deal makers. Supervisor Brandt-We have got to have funding to close this and DEC has to know that and I do not know why they think that Queensbury should have to pay a tax to do this, they gave Huntington 17 million dollars already to close their landfill. I understand there is funding for little towns in the Adirondacks, ours in the Adirondacks but somehow we do not seem to fit in there. Mr. Salvadore-RE: Hudson Valley Greenway- The only sales pitch the government would have on this green line philosophy is tax abatement. In the process government creates junk land and then they pick it up for a song... Supervisor Brandt-What I was attempting to do was to put a willing buyer and a willing seller together... we were trying to find a funding source for the buyer that was to be a private foundation and the discussion was that the land would stay in production as managed forest and on the tax rolls. Mr. Salvadore-RE: Sign Ordinance could you incorporate into that the fact that we in North Queensbury and the Lake George Park are under a Lake George Park Commission sign ordinance that has been in effect since 1963, I think we are saying one or the other, not both. .... The County adopted the F.E.I.S. for the Sewer Project, do you have a copy of it, may I borrow it to make copies? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. We will give it to you free, make a copy for you... Mr. Salvadore-What are we going to do about the recommendations? Supervisor Brandt-The next thing we have to do is meet with the engineers and the County and we are asking us to bring forth anyone that is an interested party, we are looking to identify any other alternatives we should be studying. Mr. Salvadore-Clough Harbour are licensed engineers who are responsible for their recommendations... Supervisor Brandt-$50,000 in that whole piece of engineering work that was set aside for litigation, there has not been much litigation yet and so they said lets use some of that money to do the alternative studies in Queensbury...invited Mr. Salvadore to the meeting. Mr. Salvadore-I would like to look at the study and let you know... You mention the problem with the Town Justice and the subject of prosecution here in Town, Justice Bacas. Supervisor Brandt - I did not name names I just said that the people of Queensbury are suffering while the DA and the Justices are fighting and I do not think that's good for the residences for Queensbury and I do not think that is good for law emorcement and I think in the end I am understanding some of the police work by the State Police is moving out of the Town and going in other areas where such a fight does not exist. Mr. Salvadore-It is not uncommon for the Lake George Park Commission to issue summons and bring them to Qsby. Town Court who prosecutes? Attorney Dusek-I do not know, I certainly am not involved in those? Mr. Salvadore-Questioned if the DA prosecutes for the Park Commission? Attorney Dusek-I do not know. Mr. Salvadore-That is a question for the Park Commission... On your survey that you do on Pickle Hill (Harris Issue), we have one up on Dunhams Bay on Alexy Lane the same category, we have a neighbor that uses the Town road for everything, he has got logs stored in it, he parks five or six vehicles all over the place, I have mentioned this many times to Dave Hatin he has gone to Paul Naylor, it goes on and on. He has a hole in the ground up there that was dug fifteen years ago that is still there, nothing has been done, it is a mess. It is not compatible with the neighborhood I do not know what you can do. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 302, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on Abstract dated 5/13/93 and numbered 93164600 through 93189200 and totaling $203,702.94 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Caimano RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 303, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss personnel matter and a matter of litigation. Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 1993 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury