Loading...
1993-12-13 TOWN BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1993 7:01 p.m. MTG.#90 RES. 748-759 BOH. 60-61 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Pliney Tucker Attorney Paul Dusek PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TUCKER RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 748.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE -MS. MARGARET WALLACE NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-As a Board of Health we have a public hearing on a Sewer Variance. Mrs. Wallace is here are you represented? Mrs. Wallace-No. Supervisor Brandt-Ok. Would you want to come up and talk to us and we will open the public hearing. Ms. Wallace-I have and I did not have a chance to copy them but I have the statements from two other people who are within 150'. Supervisor Brandt -OK. Ms. Wallace-The septic tank was put in last week and this variance is for the dry wells. Jay Sweet is planning to do it tomorrow if I am granted the variance. Supervisor Brandt-All right, well, it is a public hearing, is there anyone that wishes to speak on this application at this time? Councilman Caimano-Should we have Hatin's letter read into the ... Supervisor Brandt -Yea, please. Town Clerk Dougher- Dear Board Members: I have reviewed the variance application for Mrs. Wallace to place a septic system closer to her well and the neighboring Barber's well less than the required 100 feet. Looking at the property, this seems to be the best alternative and the neighbor did give us a letter saying that they had no trouble with the septic system being placed within the 100 feet from their well. Unless a neighbor objects to this situation, I would ask the Board to approve this variance as is as there seems to be no other reasonable alternative at this time. Sincerely, /s/ David Hatin, Director Building and Code Enforcement Supervisor Brandt-Anyone to speak on this? Any questions from anyone on the Board? I will declare the public hearing closed. Thank you. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR MS. MARGARET WALLACE RESOLUTION NO. 60, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Ms. Margaret Wallace previously filed a request for three (3) variances from certain provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such provisions being more specifically that requiring that there be a 150 foot separation between the seepage pit and the well or suction line, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance requests on December 13, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that she must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variances to Ms. Margaret Wallace allowing the placement of the seepage pit 75' from her own well and 110' and 120' from her neighbors' wells, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distances on property situated on 169 Reardon Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 44, Block 2, Lot 27. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 61.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING RURAL HOME OCCUPATION PROPOSED LOCAL LAW Supervisor Brandt-We have two public hearings one on the proposed local law on Home Occupation and Jim do you want to lead us on that? Executive Director Martin-This was a change to the code that came out of the Route 149 study and this basically expands the existing definition of Home Occupation somewhat and also defines it. The proper notices have been given to the involved agencies, the County and Town Planning Board have been notified and AP A has been notified, we did get one comment from them and I confirmed over the phone today, they have no problem with the one change that they would like the signage to be limited to five square feet rather than nine to be in compliance with their agency law. That was the only comment they had. Supervisor Brandt-Before we talk about it lets open it to the public for any comments that are there. It is a public hearing is there anyone that would like to speak on this matter at this time, come on right up. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-First of all was this properly advertised. I did not see it in the paper... Town Clerk Dougher-Yes, it was. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-When was it advertised. Town Clerk Dougher-December 2nd. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Would you please define, would apartment, people living in an apartments be classified as home occupation, if a person has like five apartments on the premises would everybody in that particular apartment house be able to have a home occupation? Supervisor Brandt-I do not know. Anyone see a restriction on that? Attorney Dusek-Just looking through it I do not see a restriction, however as a practical matter there would be some restrictions imposed by virtue of the fact that it is apparently only allowed in land conservation zones and rural residential, so to the extent that you would find apartments there I suppose this could conceivable pop up in some of the apartments but as a practical matter I think you are limited by zones and also by the practicality of even placing it in an apartment dwelling. Councilman Monahan-I think also Paul, the fact that the parking is stated how much parking you have to have and etc. Executive Director Martin-And the area that the use can occur in the home occupation can occur in is limited to forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling so, it would be rather restricted. Supervisor Brandt-Would principal dwelling be an apartment in that case? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Supervisor Brandt -So if you had a property with say three apartments and, say the owner lived in one of them conceivably could they put the three of them working together in an occupation like this? Executive Director Martin-Yea, you could have three individual dwellings there with Supervisor Brandt-And they could each have an employee so they would have three employees... Mrs. Caroline Martindale-That could create a lot of traffic at one site potentially, right? Councilman Caimano-Except as Paul points out that we are in a rural residential and land conservation zones. Executive Director Martin-I think by and large the number of apartments in those zones is rather limited most of our apartments that we have in town are in MR-5 or the SR zones. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Please, I would like to state for the record that on 149 I know that two particular parties and I could mention, I do not want to mention any names but they do have one had two apartments on his property the other has five and this would add considerable amount of traffic at one site or these two sites and if 149 supposedly is such a high traffic road that could create a lot of problem and I have a suggestion to help clarify that. Instead of calling it rural home occupation call it rural taxpayer so that the one that is paying the taxes would be the one to do it, to have the operation. It would be just a simple change of words, rural taxpayer occupation and then people who have apartments would not be subject to this law which is kind of a too broad. Councilman Monahan-Paul, would that be considered discriminatory? Attorney Dusek-I would recommend against taxpayer because zoning really is dedicated to land use as opposed to people. Supervisor Brandt-But you could say Landowner. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Landowner ok. Supervisor Brandt -Or property owner. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Fine. Attorney Dusek-Taxpayer would not be the term... Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Rural landowner... Councilman Monahan-I am not even sure you if you can discriminate in that way because supposing I were renting a hugh farm or something or other? Attorney Dusek-Here again though, even with the term landowner you are still going after the person as opposed to the use on the land. I think you have to remember that your zoning laws are designed to control the use of the land not the persons on the land so much as the use of the land in theory because you have master plans you have given arrangements for the community that are important to maintain. So, it seems to me that just because a person is a landowner he rents the property that should not be the deciding factor and I think you could be challenged on that, that it is obviously not reasonably not associated with the land if you are distinguishing on people. You really have to distinguish on you know the property itself. Now, whether you want to get into issues of apartments, single family dwellings as to who could have this, that would be another area to take a look at. But, I would stay away from using people. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-It clarifies the situation so that just like, you cannot have seven different occupations on one particular site in creating a lot of traffic. How would you clarify it so that it would protect the persons owning the property that can do it and not. Attorney Dusek-I guess that you have to, the Board would have to make a decision at this point as to whether the restrictions that are provided in this local law are sufficient to avoid the type of problem that is being suggested. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Would this help, would this right here also if a person did not have a house on the property they could still do this with a principal structure on this or no, are you saying no? Attorney Dusek-I am sorry I did not follow the question. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-If a person owns the property are you discriminated against them that they cannot do these? Or are they still allowable on the property even though they do not have a house? Councilman Monahan-It says principal dwelling. Attorney Dusek- It would be home occupation would be something that is carried outside of a dwelling you could not just have a vacant piece of property and have a home occupation, if that is what you are referring to. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-That is discrimination then. Attorney Dusek -No, its addressing an issue of somebody working out of their, of a home being used as a business essentially and what they are saying is that to a limited extent we will allow business activities in homes in these particular zones. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-But how would you clarify it so that a person owning land right in that area could do the same thing without being challenged. Attorney Dusek-Well, you would need another law to do that or a significate modification of this one. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-You could modify this right here to say it in the same thing so that the landowner could also do these things as well as the home, the person owning. Attorney Dusek -Well that would be an issue for the board as to whether you want to address the issue of allowing people with vacant land to conduct business activities or some sort of an activity similar to a rural home occupation activity on vacant land without a structure. Supervisor Brandt-Without a home... Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Without a home...but say we have a farm there and just to prevent a law suit or whatever or more nuisances coming from the Code Enforcement Officials so that Fran and Carol Martindale in particular we own forty four acres on the site and if you just clarify it there with the Rural Home Occupation that a person, a land owner as well you are not discriminating against them that they also could do the same things without being attacked by neighbors and having Code Enforcement Officers come around every time you turn around etc. Is there somehow we could address this tonight and have this incorporated into this? Supervisor Brandt-That is up to the Board right now we are just open to comment. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Do you think that site plan should be, this is the way it started out as a site plan review and it has been eliminated but you can see what problems are going to be involved if you do not have site plan if you have got potentials of five apartments plus the residence and does each resident on the property have a right to have one or two, three or four occupations or what. If he wants to sell vegetables or if he wants to have handcrafted items if he wants to rent out this or that or are you going to be limited to the number of activities you can have going on in the site or just what does this home occupation protect or what is it defining? Executive Director Martin-I think it does not matter how many activities as long as the over all square footage is within the constraints here it would not matter. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-So you are not going to discriminate against somebody that owns the property and say you cannot do this because you do not have a home on it? Supervisor Brandt-The way this law is written yes. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-..discriminated against the person they are not getting any rights so how could we word it and keep the same law and just say hey it also protects the rural homeowner, the landowner the property owner as well. Supervisor Brandt-That is a question the board has got to wrestle with. Ok. Site plan I brought up to Jim this afternoon and I want to bring it up and discuss it further. Executive Director Martin-The reason why it was... site plan is wasn't thought of as being a very big issue that there is a lot of these things that are dealt with in quantitative forms here there is not a whole lot of interpretation or anything or value that is really brought by a board review and one of the mandates was a year ago was to stream line things and make things more efficient and more and keep the costs down for the applicant and so on and so forth. So, given the quantitative approach to this definition it is something that is either it's there or it's not. There is really not an interpretative review. Supervisor Brandt -My thought was you could do it by Staff review rather than by going to the Board. I think that someone should review it I think you ought to look at how the driveways are placed and what traffic considerations there are rather than just blanket say yes. I think someone should do that and I think Staff could do that. But, it should be reviewed. Councilman Monahan-Do you want a line in here and Jim I do not know if the Planning Board has to give up this right or not, that all sites that encompass a home occupation will be subject to review by the Planning Board's staff for site distances and esthetics for whatever criteria you want to put in. Supervisor Brandt-I think that would be a good addition to put on it. Executive Director Martin-I indicated to Mike today, the only other area that I know of in the ordinance where we have deviated from the Board review is the two lot subdivision. Where staff, or the Zoning Administrator approves that and it does not require a Board review. Councilman Monahan-And if, you know, people have a problem worrying about apartments we could probably qualify this principal dwelling that it would be either a single family home or a duplex and then you would not have an apartment complex, say, with everyone running one out of an apartment. Supervisor Brandt-I think that would be reasonable addition. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-But, you, like one property I do want, like I said I do not want to mention names, but on the top of the hill there they have a home, a beautiful home of course they have a duplex on the site still on a very high traffic road along with being on top of a hill a very bad site you would still have that same potential danger there. Councilman Monahan-Except we are going to give the Planning Staff some lee way. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Planning Staff or Planning Board? Councilman Monahan-The Planning Staff the professional staff. Mr. Frances Martindale-That is leaving it up to individuals and that is, and you have citizens that have some rights too. If you allow home occupation that is commercialism. Maybe a small form of commercialism but it is still is and if you have a business and no matter how big the business is or how small the business is they have to go before site plan we have to have parking. I have set in Planning Board Meetings and hear people argue at one place on Glenwood Avenue because the man did not have trees up and there was not even going to be any commercial people in there, it was an in home business in one sense. If you are going to have, if you are going to make some people have site plan commercial business a home occupation is commercial business and it should have site plan. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Whether it has been there for a while or whatever, it should all have to go through it. Councilman Monahan-Jim, our regular home occupation that has been on the ordinance for years, require or not require site plan? Executive Director Martin-Does not. Councilman Monahan-We have had this on the books for years and it does not require site plan, and we have never had a problem for it. Supervisor Brandt-It is a public hearing at this point and we just need input and then we will have to consider these things. Mrs. Caroline Martindale-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter? Mr. Gilbert Bowen-I am Gilbert Bowen, I have not read the law, but I get the jest that this is being restricted on the basis of some proportion of the total residential area. That may be very good at the initial inception but how are you going to enforce that is in fact later on the person chooses to enlarge the area, internally? How will you know? How are you going to enforce it, are you going to go periodically and inspect? That is my question that is all. Councilman Caimano- Y ou cannot just automatically increase the area of your residence without somebody approving it, right? Executive Director Martin-Right, physical expansion usually requires a building permit. Mr. Gilbert Bowen-But you could increase the proportion internally that you are devoting to the business. Councilman Caimano-Up to X amount of percent. Up to forty percent. Mr. Gilbert Bowen-Who is going to check it? Supervisor Brandt-What if they take it from forty percent to sixty percent sometime? Councilman Caimano- This is not a gestapo operation either. Mr. Gilbert Bowen-What you are saying, this is really open. Supervisor Brandt -Yea. I mean certainly there is a potential of some abuse on the other hand what we are really saying is we are trying to de-regulate a home occupation. Councilman Caimano-Gil, there is not a law on our books that couldn't be abused, none, not a one. Councilman Tucker-That isn't abused. Councilman Caimano-and that isn't abused. Mr. Gilbert Bowen-All I am really saying is the initial criteria is meaningless because you can come in here and declare what this is going to be and the day after you could make it some other percentage. Councilman Caimano-And you run the risk of someone will, as Mrs. Martindale was talking about there are, these zones, these on page two it talks about land conservation and rural residential zones what is not permitted in either one of those zones are apartments so if someone has an apartment there now, they do it at their risk, and if someone tums them in then whatever, ever happens, happens. I mean you can't... Supervisor Brandt-Anybody else who would like to speak on this? Mr. John Salvadore-My name is John Salvadore, again I have an example and I do not know if it applies and if its, but I will mention it. We have a neighbor who is a roofing contracting business in the city about an hours drive from here. He runs an ad in our local telephone directory in the yellow pages advertising his roofing services. He lists in that yellow page ad a telephone number that is in a dwelling in our neighborhood in a residential zone. The phone is put on phone ahead when he is not there and his office is being serviced in this other city the telephone calls that come into that telephone as a result of the yellow page ad in our section of the telephone book are switched forward. He is conducting a business I think. When he is successful and he gets work in this area then the roofing trucks arrive the materials are delivered to this area and he works out of this residentially zoned dwelling, when the job is finished he takes, and packs up and goes away. Sometimes the workers stay over night there, traffic what have you. Councilman Caimano-At this residences? Mr. John Salvadore-Yea. Councilman Monahan-He does not fall within the definitions of what can be done here John use is limited to small scale crafters, such as knitting, sewing, woodworking and art work, small scale repair work such as appliance, bicycle and tool sharpening, individual instruction such as musical and dance. Mr. John Salvadore-Is he conducting commercial business in a residential zone? Councilman Monahan-I would say he was, unless he is grand fathered for some reason he is in violation. Mr. John Salvadore-How do you get grandfathered? Councilman Monahan-If you were conducting that business there before zoning went into effect. Mr. John Salvadore-I doubt that, but. What is my recourse? Councilman Monahan-Talk to Jim. Mr. John Salvadore-Ok. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to speak on this? Mr. Ted Tumer- Ted Tumer, I have some comments and some observations. First of all under the local law it is listed, you list Section 1 Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 179-7 paragraph B, there is no paragraph B in the Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Caimano- I do not see a B. Mr. Ted Tumer- There is on mine. Councilman Caimano-Oh I see on page one. Councilman Monahan-But, it is referring to, Nick. Supervisor Brandt-Who writes these laws? Attorney Dusek-Ted, in the definitions there 179-7 do you have the book in front of you by chance? Mr. Ted Tumer-Yes. Attorney Dusek-Do you see the definitions and word usage? Mr. Ted Tumer-I am not looking at that, I am looking at home occupation that is what your listing it at home occupation. Attorney Dusek-The definition start under the 179-7 and then there is a B category there. Councilman Caimano- That is what he is talking about. Attorney Dusek-It is a little hard to see because it is off set a little bit, but it is there. Executive Director Martin-On page 179... Mr. Ted Tumer- Yea. Ok. So anyway, Rural Home Occupation as you got listed here is defined as an accessory use to a customary farming operation or a non-farm household located in a rural area designed for gainful employment. That is a business, that is a business. Rural residential is rural residential there should be no businesses allowed in a residential zone. Just because they have a larger lot, a larger piece of property that should not be a criteria for it. Involving the sale of goods and services that is conducted either from within the dwelling or customary accessory structure located within one hundred and fifty liner feet from the principal dwelling, carried on by the members of the family residing on the premises and not more than one person who is not a member of the family residing on the premise. The area devoted to the home occupation shall not exceed eight hundred square feet. Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet. Rural residential there is some homes up there close enough for that forty percent. That is a twenty by forty building. If that is not a business a commercial business then I do not know what you call it. There should be no outdoor storage of goods or materials related to the occupation either exterior display of craft goods shall be limited to one area not in excess of seventy five square feet, signage will be limited I understand now to five square feet. Required parking is one space for two hundred square feet that is four cars plus two cars for the residence, there is six cars. Use is limited, now use is limited to small scale crafters such as, that is a loose word, such as, we are going to, we are going to see interpretations for what that word means, such as. Knitting, sewing, woodworking, art work, small scale repair work, small scale repair work such as appliances, such as, again. Bicycle, tool sharpening, individual instructions such as musical and dance. Councilman Caimano- Y ou are against it in general is that what you are saying? Mr. Ted Tumer- Yea, we are going to see expansions we are going to have variances for expansion in that zone for those people who are in those businesses. How are they going to get them. They live there. What is the criteria for granting a variance on this one? These zones were designated as such because they are on fifty and fifty five mile an hour highways. They have physical limitations and unique characteristics that warrant restricting development which includes steep slopes, wetlands, marginal access to populated areas. The development is going to occur right near the road because of those physical conditions. That is all I have to say. Councilman Goetz-Ted, what is your opinion of home occupation in general? Mr. Ted Tumer-It is pretty well defined here .. Councilman Goetz-No, but your opinion, I mean, how do you feel have you seen that as a problem? Mr. Ted Tumer-No. It has been no problem. Councilman Goetz-I never did, having been on the Zoning Board. Mr. Ted Tumer-I think you are opening up a awful can of worms because you know you are going to have people that will want to locate businesses in residential zones. Councilman Monahan-But we already can in the home occupation that we have got there now. Mr. Ted Tumer- Yea, but it is limited, it is incidental to the residence you are not going to allow them, you are not going to allow them an eight hundred square foot building outside of the perimeter. Councilman Monahan-Well we can change this to make it incidental to the residence if you want to. Mr. Ted Tumer-It's a commercial operation. So, what are you going to do with a guy that is already working in his garage which might be eight hundred square feet which might be five hundred square what are you going to do he is going to be grandfathered. So, then he comes in and he says I want to expand it, I am going to go up eight hundred square feet. Because he has got the residence that he can with the footage that he can get that eight hundred square feet. Councilman Goetz-So, you think that because it tends to be on a larger piece of property Mr. Ted Tumer-Yes. Councilman Goetz-and that is the Mr. Ted Tumer-What do you tell a guy that has got an acre? What do you tell that guy? Councilman Goetz-For a reason not to do it? Mr. Ted Tumer-Not to do it. What do we tell him? Councilman Caimano-But we are not talking about the land we are talking about the dwelling. Mr. Ted Tumer-We are talking about the land, land use. Councilman Caimano-No, we are talking about the dwelling. Mr. Ted Tumer-No, no you are saying to the guy you are saying to the guy if you have got square footage enough he can have a building up to eight hundred square feet outside of that. Is that not what you are saying? Councilman Caimano- No. Mr. Ted Tumer-What are you saying? Councilman Tucker-It has to be part of the principal dwelling, the eight hundred square feet. Mr. Ted Tumer- There again it is not defined that good. Councilman Caimano- Yea, it is, the area devoted to the home occupation shall not exceed eight hundred square feet or forty percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling. Mr. Ted Tumer- Yea, but you are also saying that you can have the customary accessory structure one hundred and fifty feet from the dwelling. Do the same thing on it. Councilman Monahan-No, no, no you cannot have more than that eight hundred square feet devoted to this home occupation no matter where it is. Mr. Ted Tumer-Conducted either from within the dwelling or a customary accessory structure. Councilman Monahan-That is right, no matter where it is it cannot exceed eight hundred square feet or forty percent of the gross floor area. Mr. Ted Tumer- That is a pretty big building. Executive Director Martin-I do not deny that that is a commercial use, there is no question about that, it flatly states it is the sale of goods. What it comes down to is physiological decision are you going to allow limited commercial to occur in rural residential and land conservation zones. I am not trying, it is clear, it is commercial uses in residential zones to a limited extent. Councilman Caimano- Y ou seem to be saying it is ok in a single family residence zone but not in a rural residential zone. Is that what you are saying. Mr. Ted Tumer-No. I read it differently than you, read it and I am saying that if you are going to allow this there then you have got to allow it every place else. Councilman Caimano-We already do allow it everywhere else. Mr. Ted Tumer-Yea, but not to this magnitude. I do not think. There is people, I know a house right now that is in a development, that the guy built an addition on that has a compete woodworking shop in it. Councilman Caimano-Allowed by law. Mr. Ted Tumer-I do not know if it is allowed by law, but it is there. Councilman Caimano-But that is the point. Mr. Ted Tumer-I do not know, but there is so much of that, that goes on, that after they built a building then they put in it what they want and then, that is it. It is not fair to somebody that comes here, comes here looking for something you know and somebody else has already got it and you don't let them have it. Supervisor Brandt -Ok. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Ok, I am going to declare the public hearing closed. Before we move on that one, I would like to think on it a little bit. Councilman Monahan- I would just like to say something from the other side, Mike. Whether or not there needs to be some changes in here. But, we keep saying that we are trying to make zoning less restrictive and I think what we have to do is look at Queensbury. We have got seventy two square miles in it. All of it is not suburb all of it is not a Bedford Close, all of it is not the Pines, all of it is not Cottage Hill. Among our citizens are a lot of either single parent families or people who have to work to bring additional income into a family or Seniors who have to have additional income in order to remain in their own homes. Now, I would far rather see a mother be able to stay home and give a piano lesson and be legal while she is doing it then have to put her children in a baby sitter and go out and work maybe at a job that is four or five dollars an hour which she is making more than that say, lets say doing piano lessons. I spent a very delightful Sunday this past weekend and the weekend before going around to the small crafts people in Washington County and it was advertised as a trail of crafters that you could go to their homes and see the crafts that they had done for Christmas. They are not open all the while they are open for special times. We keep saying that we want Queensbury to maintain its rural character the people out there say it and yet every single thing we do to Queensbury is to tum it into sprawling suburbia. I think it is about time we recognize our crafts people our quilters our painters our etc. and say yes they are going to have a studio inside their home and really if they sell a painting or two or teach a little dance or teach a piano lesson we are not going to make them illegal. I do not know I think we are ruining Queensbury if you say you have to have everything over in the mall or in a commercial area that there is nothing you can do from outside your home but get up in the morning load all your kids in the car take them to a baby sitter and then go out and find what ever kind of a job you have got, can regardless of what kind of skills you could put to use and do something within your own home. This is not the way Queensbury developed in the first place I personally know that in some of our better subdivisions we do have people doing accounting work and etc. and so on out of their own home. So, I think it is a matter of philosophy and how you are going to deal with it and you know if you want to change some of the requirements as far as size or something that is one thing if you want to do something to make sure it does not get out of hand that's another thing but I do think that these skills should be acknowledged. Councilman Caimano-Jim, what was the purpose of bringing this law, amending this law? Executive Director Martin-Well, it came out of the public hearing that there was, you know we were looking into the corridor there was a desire by people along the area there that they wanted to have a home industry so to speak or the ability to do you know some of these types of things out of their home. Councilman Caimano-Are these two land conservation zone and rural residential zones are they the only residential zones in our town that do not allow home occupation? Executive Director Martin-No. Home occupation is listed I believe it certainly is in your SRI Acre in your SR zones which constitute a vast majority of the housing in town the residential zoning. It is also listed in urban residential it is in, it is not in MR5 I think for the reasons that we went through tonight with the apartments, then the SR zone it is even in the SFR zones single family residential zoning, it is in recreation commercial and then you start getting into the more heavy commercial zones. Councilman Caimano-So the answer is not no, the answer is yes. These are the only two areas where people live in single family only two zones. Executive Director Martin-Well now, let me see, I think, lets see, in terms of rural residential, home occupation is now allowed in land conservation it is also allowed under the existing definitions. Councilman Monahan-There a little difference Councilman Caimano- This just changes a little bit. Councilman Monahan-There is a little difference in this wording for those types of zones then there is for the one that... Executive Director Martin-The hardest thing to interpret the existing definition is sales may occur as long as they are not on regular basis. That is the language that is used. That is the hardest thing to interpret. This definition is out right saying sales are allowed. Where in the existing definition.. Councilman Goetz-Maybe the solution is to change the existing definition and not do this. Executive Director Martin-There is also no signage permitted in ... Councilman Goetz-Maybe if the existing definition had some problems to it to correct those and not even implement this new definition. Councilman Monahan-Again, I think Sue, that when you get in the more rural parts of Queensbury you are perhaps going to have a little different things that you allow then you would in the more. Councilman Goetz-But, wouldn't it still come under the existing definition we have? Executive Director Martin-Here, provided also that there is no stock and trade sold upon the premises on a regular basis that is the phrase that causes problems. Councilman Goetz-But then again how realistic is that is it policed? Executive Director Martin-Yea, how are you going to define regular basis? Is regular basis a garage sale that occurs every weekend or is a regular basis, every day or? Councilman Goetz-But maybe you shouldn't have those words in there? Councilman Tucker-Mr. Martin? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Councilman Tucker-In the other areas that it is allowed is there a set amount of square footage involved? Executive Director Martin-No. That is also something sets this apart. Councilman Tucker-Has it been, have you had problems where these things have got out of hand and they have opened hundred thousand square foot factory and home occupation and what have you. Executive Director Martin-No it's not. Councilman Tucker-Then why reach out and tell them this is as much as you can do and why even bother to do that? Why even, like this gentleman was saying here who is going to enforce it? I mean you are putting figures into this law that nobody is going to be able to know whether people are obeying them or not. Councilman Caimano- Two things, first of all we should not, not pass a law simply because other people are breaking the law but I think that is a very good point. It's, I do not think it is right to pass a law that cannot be enforced reasonably by the people who are supposed to, the only way I could see that we would enforce this law and that is the one thing I am stuck on is somebody going in an looking and measuring and I do not know that we want to have a citizenship like that. Councilman Goetz-I can just see that there might be problems is you have two separate home occupation definitions, people are going to go what one am I and you know what do I fall under. I think it would be better to make as I just mentioned a good definition of home occupation and maybe other than what you got now. Executive Director Martin-That is always one of the more challenging definitions to write it is always, in every community I mean we are not unique in that aspect. Councilman Caimano-Or just say none. I think we ought to step back and re-look at it there has been some legitimate questions brought up certainly there are legitimate questions of who is going to enforce the law and that is always a legitimate question in any non-communistic citizenship. I think, that is a very important Supervisor Brandt-Mr. Tumer's comment that on 149 these zones were created where there were fairly high speed zones and that you get into a question of ingress and egress and I think that is a safety question. I have heard that used to say that we should and we shouldn't do anything along 149 and I have heard the Martindales come here and ask and ask and ask to move with their own property because they feel they have a good site distance and a good place for ingress and egress. We have never moved on that we sit there and we get side tracked on all these other things and we have never given them a straight answer or addressed their requests. As far as I am concerned I do not want to move on home occupation the way that is written right now, I have some problems with it. Councilman Caimano-And there is another, that is another point, we made an issue with the Martindales last time that we were going to step away from any changes on the 149 corridor until the entire area was resolved and if we are going to be consistent in that than maybe we ought to hold back on this until we do that. I do not want to tell them or any other citizens one thing and then a week later do something else. That is why I was surprised to even see this, because we had already made a commitment that we were not going to do anything for fear of spot zoning until we solved the entire 149 corridor which you are working on now. I think you know this could be worked on but I think we ought to be consistent. Councilman Monahan-You do realize that, this isn't just 149 that this is applying to. Councilman Caimano-I do, but his explanation was that it's 149 that Executive Director Martin-That is what started this in motion and in fairness this process started prior to that decision being made last week. Councilman Caimano- The Martindale's could say the same thing though. Supervisor Brandt-I know I have looked at their property and looked at that corridor and I would love to sit down and do the rezoning of it but I do not know that we could set a public hearing and do it in this administration, I am not sure it can be done in a time and fashion put a lot of work in it. Executive Director Martin-I think the ration approach certainly is, and the logical approach is to a lot of effort and time has gone into that study and it is going to be on the Planning Board agenda in January for adoption get it adopted, I have consulted with Paul and under Town Law that is still the board that adopts master plans and modifications to master plans which that would be deemed. And then it is up to this Board as the legislative body to see what elements that you want to actually put into law out of that study. Councilman Caimano-My suggestion is that you take the suggestions that come out of this meeting tonight still work on this law until such time but one of the things that needs to be worked on is how do you look over this law, who decides what is right and what is wrong. Councilman Tucker-I think you have to take the figures that you are putting in here to control these things I think you have got to take them out. Executive Director Martin-Believe me I am all for reasonable enforcement. Councilman Caimano-It ought to be reasonably enforced. Supervisor Brandt -Close the public hearing and as far as I am concerned move on to the next. Agreed to by the Board. PUBLIC HEARING FIRE COMPANY CONTRACTS NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-I will open the public hearings on the fire contacts. Proper notice was made? Town Clerk Dougher-Yes it was. Councilman Tucker-I have got one comment before we start. Supervisor Brandt -Go ahead. Councilman Tucker-The resolution that we got in our packet you left out Queensbury Central on the resolution. You call for five fire companies and only named four. Attorney Dusek-Point well taken I would propose an amendment to the resolution to include them. Supervisor Brandt-I would like to declare the public hearing open on the contracts with the fire companies is there anyone that would like to speak on that? Councilman Monahan-Paul I want to know which fire district you live in. Attorney Dusek-Seriously? Councilman Caimano-He used to live in Central. Mr. John Salvadore-You all live in the same fire district. Supervisor Brandt-Fact. Mr. John Salvadore-Mrs. Monahan Councilman Monahan-I realize that. Supervisor Brandt-Is there anyone that wants to speak on this at all? I will close the public hearing. Would you want to consider that at this point? RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACTS WITH THE FIVE (5) VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE QUEENSBURY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 749, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, there has been duly established in the Town of Queensbury a Fire Protection District embracing all of the geographical territory of said Town, and WHEREAS, the Town has provided for fire protection therein by individual contracts with the five (5) volunteer fire companies in the Town of Queensbury, known as the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.; the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.; the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc; and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and WHEREAS, the present contracts between the Town of Queensbury and said fire companies expire on December 31, 1993, and WHEREAS, negotiations have been held between the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and appropriate representatives of the five (5) volunteer fire companies in the Town of Queensbury relative to new contracts with the five (5) volunteer fire companies for fire protection in said Fire Protection District, and WHEREAS, proposed agreements have been reached by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury with each of the five (5) volunteer fire companies for fire protection for the Fire Protection District, and WHEREAS, said five (5) proposed agreements between the Town and said Fire Companies have been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the form of the said proposed agreements has been approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Town Law § 184 mandates that a public hearing be held prior to entering into contracts for fire protection in a Fire Protection District, and WHEREAS, there was duly posted and published notice that such a public hearing would be held before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on December 13, 1993, relative to the proposed agreements presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held and all persons interested in the subject thereof were heard, and WHEREAS, it appears that said proposed agreements are fair and reasonable, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Fire Protection District, hereby enters into said contract with the five (5) volunteer fire companies in the Town of Queensbury, in the form presented at this meeting, for fire protection for the Fire Protection District, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury be and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute each of said contracts on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the Fire Protection District. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Public Hearing re-opened.. Mr. John Salvadore-On second thought I have a question. Supervisor Brandt -Go a head. Mr. John Salvadore-On the fire contract. Supervisor Brandt-We will reopen the public hearing. Mr. John Salvadore-Thank you. Councilman Tucker-Give your name please for the record. Mr. John Salvadore-John Salvadore, why are you holding a public hearing on this subject? Supervisor Brandt-Because the Attorney told me we must. Attorney Dusek-Town laws requires the public hearing. Mr. John Salvadore-Should these contracts have been made available to the public to look at. How do I prepare for this meeting? Attorney Dusek-The contracts were filed with the Town Clerk at the time the public hearing was set a notice went out in the newspaper I believe the notice indicated that all persons interested in such contracts shall be heard and then you can contact the Town Clerk. Mr. John Salvadore-Oh, ok good. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else, then I will close the public hearing... Vote taken. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TOWN BOARD MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 780.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of November 15th, 22nd, 30th and December 6th 1993. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 751.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Cemetery Commission, and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on said Commission, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Joseph P. Fiore of629 Arberger Drive, Queensbury to serve as a member of the Cemetery Commission, said term to expire on June 30, 1996. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None Comments made during vote: Councilman Monahan-I would like my reason put in the record please, I am not voting against Mr. Fiore but I believe that the appointment should have been offered to Mrs. Prime who has served as the Secretary for that commission for several years and I feel that this is not an acknowledgement of the good work that she has done on that commission and I feel that she should have been reappointed to the commission. RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBER TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION NO. 752.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Zoning Board of Appeals, and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on said Board, due to the resignation of Thomas Philo, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints David Menter of Queensbury to serve as a member of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to fill an unexpired term, said term to expire on November 30, 1994. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CHAPTER 155 THEREOF, ENTITLED, "TAXATION," BY DELETING AND REPEALING ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "BUSINESS FACILITIES TAX EXEMPTION," AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, §155-4 AND §155-5 THEREOF. RESOLUTION NO. 753. 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1993, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 155 thereof, entitled, "Taxation," by deleting and repealing Article II, entitled, "Business Facilities Tax Exemption," and more specifically, § 155-4 and § 155-5 thereof, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 27th day of December, 1993, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1993 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _,1993 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None Discussion held-Attorney Dusek-Attached is the section of the law in your code that is seeking to be repealed if you will notice it was adopted in 1977 originally an exemption then, and it says as defined by former section 115 of the commerce law. Recently I had reason to go back and look at this and when I went back to the commerce law I found that the section that gave rise to that no longer is in effect and I also went back to 485 of the Real Property Law and found that that section also had been repealed which gave rise to this particular section. Although that I do notice that this law says it refers to these laws as former but what concerns me is at this point with this law on the book I do not know how the Town can really make use of it because without the underlying state statutory authority I am troubled by this staying in existence and because I know of no authority for it I am recommending that you repeal it. Now to be safe though the repealing legislation does provide that if somebody out there currently receiving a benefit under the law that we do not know about then they continue to receive that benefit until it is exhausted. That same type of language was used in the repealing legislation of the State Law, they said if anybody was getting the benefit of the State Law you could still get it until the time ran out. So, this just simply removes a Statute on the books at my recommendation to you that I am not sure about it I think until we really know what it is you want you and if there was authority you could always come back and repass this. Councilman Monahan-Asked the Town Attorney to check into the Tax Exemption for Seniors... RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAYÆASEMENT AND APPROVING MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 754. 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has, heretofore, undertaken a project to deepen Hovey Pond, create a park area around the Pond and establish a permanently excavated manmade channel at the eastern end of the former dam area of the Pond to allow for partial stream channel diversion past Hovey Pond on a permanent basis, in order to help preserve the cold water ecosystem of Halfway Brook, and WHEREAS, when the project was originally commenced, the aforesaid manmade channel at the eastern end of the former dam area was planned to be temporary and a different plan for the Pond had been contemplated but, due to modification of the plans for the project, it has been determined that it would be appropriate to maintain the excavated manmade channel, permanently, to allow for partial stream diversion past Hovey Pond on a permanent basis in order to help preserve the cold water ecosystem of Halfway Brook, and WHEREAS, since the rights to install the manmade channel were obtained only temporarily and since a permanent easement is now necessary, the owners of the property upon which and through which the aforesaid manmade channel passes were contacted and asked to provide such an easement and said owners, have offered to sell the easement to the Town of Queensbury for the sum of $3,150.00, and WHEREAS, the owners of the affected property have provided information indicating property value and the fact that the same was the subject of an appraisal in October 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has obtained an appraisal of the proposed easement, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, considering the fact that the manmade channel currently exists and a permanent easement is not currently had, and giving due consideration to the value of expeditiously and economically resolving this matter with the owner of the property over which the channel exists, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the acquisition from 73 Quaker Road Associates, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, of an easement, as set forth on the map presented at this meeting and to be annexed to this resolution as Exhibit A, in the amount of $3, 150.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby also approves and authorizes the Right-of-WayÆasement and Fill Agreement - 1993 Modification that has been presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute all documents that may be necessary and arrange to have the Town seal placed on such documents as may be necessary to assume title to the easement provided for herein and file any papers, including the Right-of-WayÆasement and Fill Agreement - 1993 Agreement with the County Clerk's Office and pay such recording fees as may be required to make such filings, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the purchase authorized herein shall be subject to the Town Attorney's approval as to title, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that payment for the easement shall be taken from the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund #61, in the amount of $3,150.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there currently exists a Capital Project Account for Hovey Pond (#82-7110- 2899) and the said Capital Project Account appropriation shall be increased by $3,150.00, with the source of funds to be a transfer from the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund #61 upon the expiration of a permissive referendum time period, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the acquisition provided for herein shall be subject to a permissive referendum and that no action to carry out the terms and provisions of this resolution shall be undertaken until such time as the time in which to undertake a permissive referendum has expired or until such time as a referendum indicates approval and, if either event does not occur, there be no authorization to carry out the terms and provisions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 755.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano 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: BUILDING & GROUNDS: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-1620-4026 01-1620-1070 $ 900.00 (Grounds Contractual) (Clerk, Part-Time) TOWN ATTORNEY: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 01-1420-4400 $ 16,750.00 (Contingency Account) (Misc. Contractual) TOWN CLERK: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-1410-4400 01-1410-4080 1,000.00 (Misc. Contractual) (Advertisement) and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None Attorney Dusek-Regarding the Hovey Pond resolution, the appraisal that we obtained on that parcel that we are acquiring the came in the sum of $3,000...1 will file the appraisal with the Town Clerk tomorrow so she has that in her records. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CHAPTER 136 THEREOF, ENTITLED "SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL," TO AMEND ARTICLE XXIV CONCERNING "ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER RENTS." RESOLUTION NO. 756. 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _,1992, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136 thereof, entitled "Sewers and Sewage Disposal", to amend Article XXIV concerning "Establishment of Sewer Rents," and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, the legislation is proposed in connection with the continued operation and management of the sewer district and is therefore determined to be a Type II Action under SEQRA, not requiring any further SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 27th day of December, 1993, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1993 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _, 1993 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None DISCUSSION REGARDING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING THE HUDSON POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Executive Director Martin-I have a letter from Dick here today, this afternoon it just came in hand delivered and I can address you on my end of it as well. I will hand this out to you. Supervisor Brandt-Mr. Dusek have you had a chance to review this? Attorney Dusek-Yes I have. Supervisor Brandt-So, you can make a comment to. Executive Director Martin-If you take a moment to read that letter I think you will find that basically Mr. Morse is indicating that the document is complete for review. Supervisor Brandt -Requested that the letter be read. Executive Director Martin- (Morse Engineering P.C.) 12/13/93 Per your request, we have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Low Density P.U.D. Alternative for this project as prepared by the Saratoga Associates. By eliminating formal access and use of the point area, eliminating multi-family lots and increasing the width of buffer zones, the applicant has either addressed or rendered moot many of the concerns that have been raised during the review process. Traffic concerns appear to have been addressed by widening the primary access road and decreasing the number of proposed units. Rerouting of the secondary access point from Foothills Drive to Sherman Island Road and the addition of the proposed community center/day care center may, however, have an effect on traffic patterns. We suggest the Town request that the applicant supply a brief update to the traffic study, quantifying the inferred decrease in traffic density. The introduction of a proposed community center/day care center raises a number of questions, many of which have been answered by the applicant at open meetings with the Town Board. We suggest the Town request that the applicant supply a brief written statement outlining the facilities, usage and constituency of this proposed facility. The revised plan also introduces the possibility of a neighborhood commercial development further west on Corinth Road. As that proposed site is separated from the main project by a substantial distance, we suggest seeking an opinion from the Town Attorney regarding its introduction at this point and the possibility of segmentation under the SEQRA process. At this point, we feel the applicant has submitted sufficient information to allow the Town to open the public comment period on the FEIS. Submission by the applicant of the additional information described above will simply place in the written record certain things which have previously been stated in open meetings. The mitigation measurers presented by the applicant are, in our opinion, described at an adequate level of detail at this time. Detailed plans will, however, be required during the site plan/subdivision review to be undertaken by the Town Planning Board. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Morse Engineering, P. e. /s/ Richard S. Morse, P.E. President He was unable to attend tonight that is why he offered this letter. Councilman Monahan-So he feels there is a little bit of additional information that we do need. Executive Director Martin-Right. I have had a chance to skim the document and read it in some detail. I concur with Dick that there are several minor items that are outstanding I think it is basically complete for review, my comments were focused primarily on the density and that has been addressed with a lower number of units, relating to the soils and the other one was the PCB's contamination. I am making the assumption I would like to see some written analysis that we are away from those dump sites my impression that they are mostly in the ravines along the bluff however I would like that confirmed with some sort of site analysis or mapping. Councilman Monahan-Paul Naylor, have you had a chance to look at the streets and the drainage and etc. in this reduced plan? Highway Supt. Naylor-No. Councilman Monahan-But you are not finished your complete evaluation of it yet? And I also note that I am going to Jeffrey Friedland letter he raised some concerns in there and one of them is that one three acre lot in a PUD because it is in the water residential three acres and whether or not that should be a separate lot, separate subdivision. That was one, plus the fact that he has got something about the cleaning up the sites and the ravines and there is a lot of garbage there. Jim would you say in another week by the 20th we could have all the answers to all these little things that are kind of ...here that we could get that done and clean it up? Executive Director Martin-I do not think there is anything of any major concern that I have heard by any of the involved people that is crippling or going to hold... Councilman Monahan-So, in another week you would be prepared to say that this was a final? Councilman Caimano-Well the thing is that on page three of the resolution for example, it talks about the involved agencies and public gets a ten day period to respond after filing of notice of completion and FEIS, when does that start, when does the clock start. Executive Director Martin-As soon as you determine it complete then the ten days starts and then you submit your statement of findings and the reason why that ten days is in there is so you can consider any other comments you may get between now and the time you begin your statement of findings. Councilman Goetz- I understand there is some sort of a meeting that the Hudson Pointe people are... Executive Director Martin-There is a neighborhood meeting on, what is it on what is it on Allen? Mr. Allen Oppenheim-The evening of the 16th. Councilman Goetz-So, I mean people who go to that might learn something that they want... Councilman Caimano-I guess I do not want to start the ten day clock until all the issues are on the table other wise I do not want to waste our time again. Attorney Dusek-I might make a comment to the Board once you accept the FEIS it is over, as far as the FEIS is concerned the EIS process so that ten days is kind of a mystery period in the regulations because even if you get comments during that ten days there is nothing you can do about the FEIS in theory at that point anyway you are done, your are finished once you have accepted it and you move on to the next step which is to adopt your findings based on the document so you should be sure that you are satisfied that the FEIS is where you want it at this point. Councilman Tucker-Question, either one of you gentlemen, I understand after this goes through the system we are going through now, it goes back to the Planning Board for site plan review? Attorney Dusek-That is correct. Councilman Tucker-What is your professional opinion ... we are the point of where anything that comes up from this point on, that the Planning Board can't handle it? We have hashed this thing out everyway but loose. Attorney Dusek-The issues that have been raised here by Morse Engineering and Jim in my opinion go to the heart of the EIS and that is your obligation to finish and the Planning Board really can't get into that issue. So, I think you have to satisfactory address these issues first before you can move on. Supervisor Brandt-I would like to have that answer on the commercial zone which is way off from the rest of the project and basically there is a residence there and it covers two sides of that residences. I think that resident might be, I do not even know the person or at least I do not think I do but that person might want to give input. I am not sure that, that makes sense because, I mean, well if it were not a PUD it would be spot zoning without a question but it is a PUD but it an outlying piece from it so we get into legalities and Morse brings it up and I think it is a question that really ought to be addressed. Councilman Goetz-It has been mentioned that it is basically ready and to me basically ready and being ready are two separate things and I think we need more time. Supervisor Brandt-But in reality what you are really saying also is that this is going to move to the next board and this Board has done a lot of work on it but the next board has too they have certainly looked at it carefully I think and so it moves to the next board, I do not think that is a great big problem. Councilman Monahan-Yea, but we can tie their hands on what they can do and what they require on what we do on this board and if we do not put certain requirements in there about things that we are concerned on they have... Supervisor Brandt-Well that fine... Councilman Caimano- That is what he is saying those questions are already there and by not taking action we are not tieing anybody hands. Councilman Monahan-That is right, that is what I am saying if we accept it as final the way it is we are tieing his hands. Councilman Caimano-I would like to get an answer to Friedland's question and I think it would be an easy resolution to that three acre lot and I would like to hear an answer to it and I want to get it resolved once and for all. I can think of several answers to it but I want to hear somebody. Supervisor Brandt-There are people from Hudson Pointe here and I would certainly welcome their input in this discussion if they choose to do that. Mr. Brewer-...As a member of the people that wrote that letter we would like to strike that comment. Councilman Caimano- Which comment. Mr. Brewer-the one about the three... Mr. Brewer-...if anyone else wants to bring it up that is fine but we would like to withdraw that comment. Councilman Caimano-So, you are saying Friedland's will withdraw it? Mr. Brewer-Yes, he is representing us and we are telling you... Councilman Tucker-You are satisfied. Ok. Councilman Monahan-I still think that we have to make sure that it complies with our zoning. Mr. Brewer-From where we stand.. Councilman Caimano-But I am glad to hear that. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-But someone else could make that same issue and its probably the legal bases ought to be looked at and discussed and put in the record. Attorney Dusek - I thought maybe this had been discussed at the last meeting to some extent but I had reviewed that issue and I guess Mike O'Connor at that time had mentioned some of his thoughts on it but mine were fairly close to the what his were. This is a unique situation when you have a PUD and you have various actions that have gone on in terms of decisions that were made relative to this three acre parcel. It is not something that I would say that you certainly want to see happen in every PUD and it is something that we have got to watch for but because of the decisions iliat were made and the time lapses that occurred it is my opinion that although you could certainly make an argument well it is not supposed to be there and we should challenge it on the other hand I think there is a very good chance of loosing that battle and therefore I am not bothered by saying all right, it is in there we move on from here and let it go. For one reason because I think you would loose it but there is also another reason and that is this happens to be a legislative act that you are about to undertake and I think you have a certain amount of leeway in that privilege. Although I say, I am not telling you I would recommend it in the future but you have a combination of circumstances here that allows me to say, well, let it go. Councilman Caimano-From my stand point then having heard Tim and having heard you then I withdraw my concern. Supervisor Brandt-I have no concern there either then, on that point. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-Representing the Michels Group, I guess what I would like to do I think we have gone through process a long time is at least go down issue, by issue to be sure I think some of these issues have been discussed in the past and just as we had on that three acre lot we had some feed back from the Town Attorney I think we are able to check that off as an issue. When I sit here and listen to some of the concerns such as traffic for example. Now, I would agree that you know, there has been are-configuration in the road network so that it does make sense to get an update. But, from a practical stand point in terms of impact taking into account the changes that have been made to the project the drop in density from 163 to 96 units, the Boulevard Road the opening up of Sherman Island Road all improvements to the whole traffic network. It seems as if this is something again, it is not negative these are all positive changes so it seems as if that should not be something that holds up the process. I would like to hear comment on that. I do not understand why an issue like that would hold up our process here. Executive Director Martin-I can't address Dick's comment I do not know what his thinking was on the traffic when he reached that comment. I imagine something from Nick Sciartelli to be quite specific about it but I do not know what the thinking was. Councilman Goetz-My thinking was just because it was reduced from an amount that I thought was way to high in the beginning, reduced down does not justify why we should not get more information on that particular item now. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-I do not disagree with that because obviously you want to under stand the traffic flow for the whole project and I think Nick Sciartelli was looking at strictly from a technical standpoint but I think from the Town's perspective when they are looking at the over all impact when we are reducing the number of cars and we made changes to the traffic flow that is in response to specific concerns with the Town I think everybody can clearly sit here and say tonight that these are all positive changes to the plan as far as traffic goes. So, I do not see why a matter such as traffic should hold up our thought process. Because I think we all know that these are positive changes to the project. Councilman Goetz-They are positive changes but it was so dramatic a request in the beginning, that that just doesn't justify it. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-But we have all the information the traffic information on the existing the 162 units. Councilman Caimano- I understand. Mr. Allen Openheim-I would just like to go through it I mean I think on that matter, on PCB's that's just to go back to the issue, that was something that was raised we have done two phase on site assessments out there, repeatable firms, CT Male, and Environmental Technologies. Two good studies that have not revealed problems or issues with PCB's now this was an issue brought up by somebody that has not been part of the project and they said that they heard that at some point in time historically there are PCB's somewhere out there. We, we would be the first ones to have a concern if we knew that they were on the site. So, it seems again that is a matter that yes, we will address further and we will try and go out with that individual during site plan but again to hold up the process based upon somebody coming out of woodwork when we have done two comprehensive studies doesn't seem to have a good basis. Councilman Caimano-What about the, I am sorry, go ahead. Councilman Tucker-My question Allen, the piece on the Corinth Road the commercial piece, this is out of the blue, what is the reason for that. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-Well, let me, the reason for that and I think to go back to the origin of that, that was originally suggested on the part of our planning staff and I think everybody had agreed that, well it made good sense to provide for that option. I do not think, that is something that would at some further date would have to go through a site plan review on its own. Supervisor Brandt-But, you know the rezoning here. Executive Director Martin-Plus, you could make that a stipulation even of the PUD if you want, that to be the case, you could put that right in your resolution. Councilman Tucker-That would take care of it for me then if it has got to go through the system if it is to happen I would be satisfied with that. Executive Director Martin-The other comment, couple of remaining comments I would have I would like to see a provision for fifty or sixty foot wide access way down that long narrow strip in from Corinth Road for dedication to the town in the event that you would like to get access from that point. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-I think that makes good sense, in conjunction with the type of open space plan that is on the books. Executive Director Martin-The other thing I heard from Tom Flaherty is that the dedication of the five acre parcel to what would be the west of the water treatment plant the expansion plan for the plant may include the need to take a piece of that so that five acres may have to be adjusted somewhat to include for those expansion plans.. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-Ok. Again I mean, this all along, and I do not say that, I am sure that all makes good sense and we are happy to work Executive Director Martin-This is new, this is, we are starting, my impression is he is starting to get an idea what that plant is going to look like. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-The only thing on that and I know we have pretty, we have had a number of discussions with Mr. Dusek and Mr. Brandt on the water plant and their goals and all along the Town has been very explicit in trying to keep the specific, the Hudson Pointe project separate from the Water Plant dealings. So, I think that we clearly want to work with the Water Plant to accommodate their needs but it seems unfair to penalize our process. Executive Director Martin-I do not mean penalize... Councilman Caimano- W e just have to adjust. Councilman Tucker-A point of order. That five acre plot that you are going to donate, or want to donate to the Town would come to the Town and then water district would have to buy whatever they needed, yes they do. Councilman Monahan-Once it has been donated for recreational, I am not sure where that stands. Attorney Dusek -Your locked in at that point. Councilman Monahan-You are locked in that is what I thought. Executive Director Martin-That is why I raised the point. Councilman Monahan-That is why you have got to get this stuff jelled out. Councilman Caimano-We are locked in if they give us that five acres and we haven't carved off the amount that the water plant needs... Supervisor Brandt-But that is a matter of writing a clause from our side it certainly they are willing to work with us. Councilman Tucker-As you put the package together. Councilman Monahan-That is why I think we need another week to get these things jell together. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-Mr. Dusek, don't you think that there is a way in the final resolution writing that goes along with the public hearing in the vote there to put some language in there. Attorney Dusek -Certainly on the land issue, I think that can be addressed. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-On the water plant. Attorney Dusek-That could be addressed at a later date at the time the resolution is adopted, that is not something that is necessary in my opinion to be addressed as a part of the SEQRA. That is just a practical issue that the Town has which the Town has been very careful as you have mentioned to want to keep those separated which I believe they should be. That shouldn't enter into this process in terms of you know, evaluation of the SEQRA or even ultimately evaluation of the plan itself. That is a separate side issue which we have to deal with but that can come later. Councilman Caimano- What about the day care center? Mr. Allen Oppenheim-The Day Care Center, we have I think as Mr. Martin said, we have talked about it. We have certainly described the intent I would be lying to you if I told you that we in our own minds have defined the exact program and the exact number of square feet at this point in the process. But, I do not think for purposes of a PUD zoning, other than identifying the area and describing as we done the general scope which would be a day care facility that would be open to the residents of the community and some type of community center building that is really as far as we have gotten. We think it makes good sense and we would expect to fine tune that during site plan. Councilman Caimano-All Mr. Morse is asking you to do is reduce to writing an outline regarding facilities, usage and constituency of the proposed facility. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-If we could sit here and discuss it and I am sure he has heard the same things that we have discussed and I think his request is fair again why hold up the process when its something that we have discussed and have addressed in satisfactory detail. Councilman Monahan-Jim, does Mr. Oppenheim have a copy of this? Executive Director Martin-No, he would not have this it just came to my door today at 4:30. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-You know from your standpoint on a legal side of thing is there any reason why we can't you know address that and have, based upon what we have discussed would there be any need to move forward with this process without having to go through that exercise? Attorney Dusek-I think that with the comments made by the engineer what is ultimately of course the decision rests with the board but what concerns me is that really he is going to issues that he feels have not been adequately addressed in this EIS this environmental study if you will. I think the thing you have to keep in mind is that this environmental study is not only utilized by this Board to make their findings once they approve the PUD it will also be utilized by the subsequent agency the Planning Board and I am not in the position to want to second guess the engineer but he is saying here that I think there is some more stuff that ought to be included in order for people to be able to truly evaluate and understand this project. Whether they are positive impacts or negative I do not think that is the point, the point is as he is saying you need some more information in the document. So, I think that is what the Board ultimately has to consider do they agree with the engineers standpoint and do they feel that it should also be in there in order for them to evaluate this. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-I know you guys are not happy to see or sad to see Mr. O'Connor not here tonight. Attorney J. David Little-I would like to point out to the Board that if you look at Mr. Morse's correspondence the next to the last paragraph I think summarizes as far as we feel speaking for Morse Eng. the applicant has submitted sufficient information to allow the Town to open the public comment period on the FEIS. I think within the context of the commentary that had been made as well as the actual report that you have gotten from Mr. Morse this evening it is clear to me that he feels that there is an adequate amount here for this to proceed. It also falls in line with the comment that was made by Jim Martin at the beginning of this questioning and the alterations and what have you are fined tuned and what we are looking at here is you know there is a public hearing already scheduled on the 27th on the re-zoning issue it would only be appropriate if we could keep this thing in step and keep it moving on the same basis and if you do accept the recommendation of Mr. Morse it seems to me that what you are going to do is move ahead with it rather than forestall it further. It does not seem to me to make sense to try and fine tune what is not a fine tuned document. It is really the idea that we have the final report here now so I would urge you to go ahead with it this evening. Councilman Caimano-Do you have a problem with that? Attorney Dusek-Well, I do because although Mr. Morse does write that the applicant has submitted sufficient information to allow the town to open the public comment period what concerns me is that that is not what happens now. What happens is once accept this document this is it, it is done, it is finished you don't go back and supplement it and he seems to be under the if I read his letter correctly, it seems that he is under the understanding that perhaps it can be supplemented after the fact and it is my opinion is that you cannot do that. Once you have approved the document it is over, and then you just simply sit back and wait ten days and then once that ten days is over you can then adopt findings. You cannot go back and amend it after you have finally adopted it. Councilman Caimano-Could we not accept it and ask I do not have the letter, Morse's letter, and indicate in there that the applicant within that ten day waiting period and as a result of final acceptance will comply with what is in here. Could we not do that or are we stuck once we say yes? Attorney Dusek-If you buy into the comments that he is giving to you here I think you are really stuck in waiting for a complete document and then you pass it and then you start the ten days. Councilman Caimano-I am not into, I have got to tell you that well Sue brings up an interesting comment, I am a little, I am not stuck on the traffic because we had a situation where the people who were concerned with this project had asked for a review by us under the PUD we did in fact review it the applicant reviewed it reduced the over all scope of the project and now we have no further comments regarding traffic as far as I know from the people who were the biggest concern, unless I hear otherwise I think the traffic issue has been laid to rest by the people who we're most concerned with it. Executive Director Martin-From my stand point I was most concerned about keeping a second alternative route for Sherman Island Road we now have that with the McDonald Subdivision being left open, that was a major safety concern. Councilman Caimano- The only other comments was a semi negative comment from the Highway Superintendent and I think we ought to hear what his comments are. If he wants to come forward. Supervisor Brandt-Do you want to come forward and talk to us on it Paul at this time or what? Highway Supt. Paul Naylor-I do not think so... Supervisor Brandt - I have got to say something, this thing became very political and some people bashed this board pretty hard for moving the project as fast as they did and the way that they did and I do not think that there is anything wrong with the people that won the election doing the final say on this project. I think that they presented concerns that the public seems to think we weren't addressing. Now, let them address them. I think they can and I think there is a good background of work here and I think I am ready to move it along right to the last day of administration and they may have the final vote and the final say but that I think is healthy. I do not think there is anything gained by ramming it through at the last minute here and not letting the new Board have the say. The new Board is the one that raised a lot of issues about it so have their say and then everybody is protected. What Morse has said, taken care of, maybe it delays the project a week or two and I am sorry for that but I can tell you that the weather is going to delay it anyhow from what I saw the last few days. I really think it would be health to just keep it moving and not try and shove it too hard from my own view point. Councilman Monahan-I think I agree with you Mike. Supervisor Brandt-Ok. I do not want to slow you up. Mr. Allen Oppenheim-Listen, I can see where this is going and the comment I would make though is if you look at where we started which was over two years ago and yes at certain junctures in the process we have come back and we have tried to so call fast track it but when you look at what we have been through and the information generated there has got to be a point where people will make their comment, take a stand and we all move on. It just, I think that we, this has been a frustrating process for all of us but we have made a lot of very positive changes we have gotten very positive input I haven't heard anybody in the immediate neighborhood who is had issues it just seems at some point people have got to take a stand and work together, it gets frustrating. Councilman Caimano- I guess the big issue is what Paul says, I do not want to if he is right then it is right that we just take one more week and I. Supervisor Brandt-I think the new Board probably can move it right along, I am guessing that they have been watching the process, there are two members on this Board that can keep continuity and I think probably move right along. Mr. Fred Champagne-I think certainly we have followed this very carefully I applaud the Michaels Group and Nimo for what they have brought forth. I personally and I will speak out and I think Allen you know this already that I Fred Champagne certainly do support the project and will give it a positive vote and I do not know what more you can expect or ask for and I think coming from the other board members there is a very positive feeling toward this project so, certainly we have used our good council in the folks there at the rear of the room and I think when Jim Martin speaks to this...information we will need to proceed, seven days won't be the end of your life and with a little luck I am sure we will be moving forward with this thing. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you, I think we want to move to the next resolution. Councilman Monahan-Requested a change be made in the Cemetery rate resolution, take out the year and say only December 1 st through March 31 st.. . agreed to by the Board. RESOLUTION TO INCREASE CEMETERY RATES RESOLUTION NO.: 757.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission, on December 8, 1993, approved a new rate schedule for the sale of cemetery lots and other cemetery/crematory services, and set the winter burial period from December 1st., through March 31st., of each year with openings to be done only if conditions allow, a copy of the new rate schedule being presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the said Cemetery Commission has requested that the Town Board approve the aforesaid rates, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the new schedule of rates. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS -L TR. Highway Dept. - Requested permission to purchase Pipe Laser... Discussion held by the Town Board it was the decision of the Board to obtain the pipe laser from Top Con America RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF PIPE LASERS RESOLUTION NO. 758.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt Authorize the purchase of pipe laser from Top Con America in the amount of $5,365.00, funding to be from 045130.210. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Tucker-Regarding the $400,000 grant from the Small Cities who did that come to? Executive Director Martin-That came to the Town...Described the grant process... Councilman Tucker-Questioned if it was going to be under the jurisdiction of the Queensbury Development Corp.? Executive Director Martin-I would recommend the money be conveyed to the QEDC. for them in tum, a loan to be made to AMG from QEDC in that amount and then the money is repaid by AMG to QEDC directly. Councilman Tucker-Requested the Mr. Martin's Dept. have some kind of oversee on this. Executive Director Martin-The Town will always have oversight on the grant, the Town Board... Councilman Tucker-Suggested that the position of Executive Director be the overseer of these monies... Executive Director Martin-Reviewed the HUD requirements, performance assessment report...it is usually done by the Community Development Department... OPEN FORUM Mr. John Salvadore-What are the three criteria for monies used by the Town? Executive Director Martin-Benefit to lower and moderate income people, meeting an urgent need and housing rehab. Mr. Salvadore-This money is going to AMG Industry, which of the three criteria have they met? Executive Director Martin-Benefit to low and moderate income people through employment of unemployed. Mr. Salvadore-What do they have to do to demonstrate that they are doing this? Executive Director Martin-They will report to the Town their employment figures every six months or annually. Mr. Salvadore-Is there a scale, low to moderate income? Executive Director Martin-Yes. Mr. Salvadore-What collateral does the town have that they will perform? Executive Director Martin-There will be a loan agreement that is drafted and entered into between either the Town and AMG or QEDC and AMG however the Town Board decides. There is a lean position on the machinery and equipment that is purchased with the proceeds to the loan, noted we are second position to the bank. Mr. Salvadore-Questioned the procedure for the Sheriffs contact? Supervisor Brandt-Noted the contract is for multiple years on a sliding scale...4 year phase out. Mr. Salvadore-When does the contract expire? Councilman Tucker-In three years. Mr. Salvadore-Does the contract specify the goods and services? Attorney Dusek-Yes. Mr. Salvadore-RE: Sewer Variance Public Hearing noted applicant offered to hold the Town harmless for any claims from the well owner if there was contamination from the septic system.. .questioned if this meant anything...questioned if it was necessary for the granting of the variance then the Town should do something to cement the hold harmless aspect... Supervisor Brandt-That was not a condition, and we did not set it as a condition. Attorney Dusek-My recollection of the situation is the criteria set forth in the granting of a variance did not call for indemnification clause...it was my impression that the indemnification was offered and why not take it... Mr. Salvadore-In the absence of the hold harmless offer what would the person who owns the well what would their position have been? Councilman Caimano-Noted that he felt the neighbor signed a statement holding harmless... Mr. Salvadore-I am concerned about a Town who believes that they are being held harmless because of some guys offer... Councilman Ciamano-It does not make any difference even if they weren't... Mr. Salvadore-You probably approved this variance because of the offer of the hold harmless? Councilman Caimano-No. It would not make any difference... Attorney Dusek-The grant of the variance is determined upon the criteria that is set forth in the ordinance... Mr. Salvadore-What liabilities have you picked up on behalf of the citizens of the Town? Attorney Dusek-No more than they do in any case that they grant a variance. Mr. Salvadore-Warren County-no monies to cover the supplemental EIS for No. Qsby. Sewer. Supervisor Brandt-It was not put in the budget but I was told that there was a discussion going on between the County and the firm that did the work asking them in effect to do it without money...spoke about a grant for small sewer systems.. Mr. Salvadore-Thanked the Board for the road signs on DunlIams Bay Road.. . noted he felt that there should be signage at the intersections...is that a Town requirement... Attorney Dusek-The Town Board would adopt a local law which sets up the signage... Discussion held it was the decision of the Board that the next administration would handle the signage in the DunlIams Bay Area... RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 759.93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss Attorney Client Privilege. Duly adopted this 13th day of December, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury