1990-08-06 rv►s o�Fr. f I Y i
TOWN BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 6th, 1990
7.00 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPER VISOR
GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN
MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN
RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
- PAUL D USEK
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY
KARLA CORPUS
TOWN OFFICIALS
Paul Naylor, Dove Hatin, John Gorolski, Ted Turner, Carol Pulver, Nicholas Coimono, Kathleen
Kothe
PRESS: G.F. Post Star, W WSC
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 442, 1990, Introduced by George Kurosoko who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Betty Monahan.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session
to discuss Personnel.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO. 443, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Kurosoko.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Regular Session
of the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
PUBLIC HEARING -PARKING ON THE BOULEVARD
NOTICE SHOWN
7.35 p.m.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That relates to the parking bon in the area of the Boulevard. I'll ask
if there is anyone here who wishes to speak for or against that or ask any questions about it?
I see no hands in the audience. Any Board members hove comments other than what you said
when we set this hearing last week?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Only that it came at the request of the residents on Queensbury
Avenue, which is the lower end of County Line Rood.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The old County Line Rood ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Depends on who you're talking to, some soy they're still on County
Line Rood.
2
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Its really a sore topic in this community. Okoy, I see no hands, here
no comments ...
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 9, 1990 REGULATING PARKING ON A
PORTION OF COUNTY ROUTE 79 ALSO KNOWN AS BOULEVARD ROAD IN THE TOWN OF
Q UEENSB UR Y
RESOLUTION NO. 444, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enocting a Local Low
to regulate parking on a portion of County Route 79, 'also known as Boulevard Road in the Town
of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Low entitled "A Local Low Regulating Parking on
a Portion of County Route 79 Also Known as Boulevard Road in the Town of Queensbury," has
been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given
to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, on August 6th, 1990, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Low to regulate parking on a portion of County 79 also known as Boulevard Road in the Town
of Queensbury, to be known as Local Low Number 9, 1990, the some to be titled and contain
such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said
Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of
the Municipal Home Rule Low and that said Local Low will take effect immediately and as
soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by t!'►e following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
LOCAL LAW NUMBER 9, 1990
A LOCAL LAW REGULATING PARKING ON A PORTION OF
COUNTY ROUTE 79 ALSO KNOWN AS BOULEVARD ROAD
IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
1. Purpose:
The purpose of this Local Low is to prohibit, under penalty of fine for violation, the parking
of any vehicle on a portion of County Route 79 also known as Boulevard Rood in the Town of
Queensbury.
2. Definitions:
For the purpose of this Local Law, the words "Motor Vehicle," "Vehicle," "Person," one
"Park" shall hove the some meaning as set forth for the definitions of such words in the Vehicle
and Traffic Low of the State of New York.
3. No Porking on County Route 79, Also Known as Boulevard Rood in the Town of
Queensbury:
No motor vehicle or other vehicle of any kind shall be allowed or permitted to park and
no persons shall park a motor vehicle or other vehicle for any period of time on or on the easterly
side or in the easterly right-of-way of.
3
A. All that piece or portion of the westerly side of County Route 79 in the Town of
Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New York, lying or existing generally 200'
on the northerly side and 123' on the southerly side of the intersection of said County
Route 79 and Queensbury Avenue, said area being more specifically described as
all that piece or portion of County Route 79, described as County Route 79, the
westerly side thereof, and right-of-way thereof, beginning•.ot the northwesterly corner
of the intersection of County Route 79 and Queensbury Avenue, and then proceeding
from said intersection on the said side of County Route 79 in a northerly direction,
200', and all that piece or portion of County Route 79, described as County Route
79, the westerly side thereof, and right-of-way thereof, beginning at the southwesterly
corner of the intersection of County Route 79 and Queensbury Avenue, and thence
proceeding from said intersection on said side of County Route 79, in a southerly
direction, 123.
— 4. Penalty:
Any person violating any provision or paragraph of Section 3 of this Local Low, shall,
upon conviction, be punishable for a first offense by a fine not to exceed $25.00, and for a second
offense by a fine not to exceed $50.00. In addition to the aforesaid penalties, the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury may institute any proper action, suit, or proceeding, to prevent,
restrain, correct, or abate any violation of this Local Low.
5. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing thereof in the Office of
the Secretary of State.
OLD BUSINESS
CR OSSMA N PR OPER T Y, Connecticut A venue
DAVE HA TIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES--Visited the site on Friday, to my knowledge
nothing has been done in the last 2 weeks. Have not been able to contact Mr. Crossmon, nor
has he made any attempt to contact me.
Town Board agreed to continue to allow Mr. Crossmon rime, requesting Mr. Hatin to check
in another week or two, making a log with the dote and what you see.
MCDONALD PROPERTY, Indiana Avenue
MR. HATIN-No contact with Doris Switzer, whom I believe is one of the heirs of the estate
or any correspondence from her Attorney, Dennis Tarantino. The house sits vacant in the some
condition when we hod a Board of Health meeting.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Questioned whether the notice was served.
MR. HATIN-Noted that Mrs. Switzer was served, but that there's question as to whether Mr.
Tarantino was served.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-What would be your recommendation Dave?
MR. HA TIN-This 1 would recommend that the Board hove torn down, i do not see anything being
done with it, its starting to decay and fall apart, the boarding was only temporary.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Questioned the Attorney on what would be appropriate at this time?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There's question whether they received notice and whether we held the
hearing or not. If in fact we did give proper notice and held the hearing, then the Board would
be in the position to make your next order if that was the Board's desire.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY CORPUS-She was never personally served as for as we know.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Will attempt to have her served before the next Board meeting, with the
hearing set for the next Board meeting if the Board would like.
TOWN BOARD agreed this would be best in order to get the situation cleaned up.
REPORT FROM TOWN ATTORNEY REGARDING REZONING OF RICCIARDELLI PROPERTY
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I've asked the Town Attorney to give us a report on the status of the
rezoning request that he has been struggling with for a period of time. 1'// ask him to be as
detailed as possible and then lets see what happens from there. Would you tell us where we
started, maybe where you've been?
4
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There are several things I need to discuss with the Board. Maybe the first
thing to start`off would be to give you a copy of a resolution determining the SEQRA port of
this which you did not receive as port of your packages that I sent out on Friday, we were still
developing this. The next document after that, that I would like to give you is a resolution
which, I apologize for the rough form that it is in but we were still working on this right up
to the moment before the meeting trying to redraft and correct to get something that 1 felt
might be a little better in terms of dealing with this rezoning issue. Now the resolution that
I'm handing to you now, is a resolution that approves the rezoning subject to certain conditions
which I have tried to set forth in those conditions, something as close to the Board's, what the
Board hod indicated that they wonted, as possible, but its not as close as I would have liked
to come and I'll explain that to you in a moment. The last resolution and this one is really roughed
out but this is a resolution which would be a straight rezoning resolution. In other words you
simply rezone to SR20 and that is it with no conditions which I know that is not acceptable
to the Board. But I wanted to give you, my goal in preparing for tonight had been to try to
give you as many options as I could. The third option you received on Friday, which is a
combination of a resolution, a declaration of restrictions and covenants, that's what it contained.
Now, part of the problem was, before 1, give you my excuses first, I got called down to New
York quite suddenly last week on serial bonds that we're working on in connection with the Sewer
District so I didn't get as much time to work with Karla on this as I wonted to. So that's why
they ore in pretty rough form. But let me just tell you what I developed. The first issue of
course the Board would hove to address would be the SF_QRA port of the project. In reviewing
the SEQRA document, you'll notice that the resolution on top is your standard resolution simply
indicating that there is no significance. Now, that's obviously up to the Board to decide, not
for me and if you feel there is a significance then we would not adopt this resolution. The next
item down is the standard copy of the regs that I always give you to let you see the criteria
that you should be examining in order to determine whether there is a negative dec. The next
item after that is a short environmental assessment form which was done by Adam and Rich
and signed by them. Following that poge is actually the backside of the environmental assessment
form which is, once again a proposed version which would indicate there is no impact. The
next version is a version of the environmental <assessment which basically indicates that there
would be either some impact or thot you do not have enough information to make that
determination as of yet and PI/ explain these both to you in a moment. The final part of this
package is a negative declaration which contains the standard format and which under page
2 of the negative declaration which is actually next to the lost page of your package, there
is reason supporting the determination. That would be something that would develop out of
this meeting if the Board was so inclined to find that there were no impacts. Now, as 1 indicated
from a legal stand point, this is the first item that really has to be addressed with the project.
The environmental impact statement that hos handwritten notes in it was something that was
developed by the Planning Deportment o,r,d was their view based on the information they had
as to whether they felt there was sufficient information to issue a negative Dec.. in connection
with this project. This is their opinion, its up to the Board of course to decide whether or not
you feel there is sufficient information before yot to decide. Among the criteria of course
you would wont to consider where its located in Towwn. You would wont to consider the amount
of land that's involved. You would wont to consider the nature of the rezoning. That's if its
residential to commercial, residential to resiJenti(d or other criteria, as well as all those items
that are enumerated in the SEQRA regulations that 1 attached. l think tonight they may be
particularly useful to you, just to take a look ;down through those to see if there is anything
that strikes your eye that you don't hove en.)ugh informotion on or that you feel may not
necessarily result in a negative impact.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just a question. P, ul, the front resolution says that we as the Town
Board hove thoroughly analyzed the projec with respect to potential environmental concerns
and then the Planning Department in then handwritten staff review has stated, just as you've
said, this is on the assessment from nurr>er 2, could the action result in any adverse effects
associated with the following, it says, prc ✓ided:to be sure that there is not sufficient information,
provided to be sure that there will be ,70 impact to groundwater. I'm supposed to have done
a thorough anolyzotion of this. . My planning staff has said and I'm not criticizing them, have
said there isn't suf`Ticient information There's also down a little ways, it says again, there's
not sufficient information provided to : �gregote this lot as unique within the SR zone, the original
density was justified based on the pl 1sicol limitations of the land, this rezoning for a social
need does not address the originally defined criteria. For me to soy 1 thoroughly analyzed this
and put my name on this resolution orrd soy negative Dec.., boy that's going to be stepping off.
I mean I don't know how the rest o;F the Board feels but 1 haven't thoroughly analyzed it.
Engineering wise, this Town Board hasn't hired on engineer to thoroughly analyze it and we're --
saying there's a negative declaration. I'm not sure I'm on firm ground here. But I'm just one
member of this Board.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is something I think that the Board has to discuss so it was my job
from the attorney's stand point to present of/ the facts to you that 1 could gather and all the
legalities to you and it's up to, I think, you folks to look it over and decide.
J
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's the kind of discussion that we hove to do.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think you do. 1 certainly do.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'll remind you that I left you a question relative to this in your
office that I hove not received an answer from yet.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Regording?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Septic systems ..., do we have any of that kind of information?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think I had given a list of questions which I had answered, 1 believe Karla
you have them, is that right?
DEPUTY ATTORNEY CORPUS-Yes.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-We'll see if we can pull those out for you in a moment, maybe that will
help you to address some of these. I was not, here again due to time frame, ... all the information
was gathered ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We're not shooting the messenger.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, no, we're just, you know, I'm with Ron ...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Even though we may get into a war tonight doesn't mean we can't all
have o soft drink together afterwards.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1'm with Ron, I hove a hard time putting my name to the document
that talks about thoroughly analyzing and not have any effect on the environment, because
I don't think we've done our job yet.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There's no question that the courts do require you to take what they call
a hard look at this SEQRA aspects to make your determination and obviously that's a judgement
coil and you really hove to, as I said, oil of you talk together and make that determination.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You remember we ended up in court one time before because of
that judgement call.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-My ... I'd say no.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe if 1 could just outline briefly then, that would be one issue that
obviously the Board will want to discuss, the next issue would be the, where we stand as for
as if you do get by the SEQRA. Obviously if you don't get by the SEQRA, it will stop there.
But if you do get by the SEQRA then you would graduate on to the next step which is a choice
between various alternatives. Now, once again because of time limitations 1 wasn't able to
bring to you all the alternatives but your alternatives ore of course, one, you don't have to do
anything. That's alternative number one because this is on act as o legislature as you ore not
required to rezone. It's your option, even though a petition as been filed, there's nothing in
the Town law that would say you have to rezone. Obviously that is option number one. Option
number two, maybe taking them in progressive order, option number two maybe to adopt a
resolution which indicates, yes we're interested in rezoning but we want to develop a declaration
of covenants and restrictions a little bit further with the developer. So that is another option
and that would give some indication of intent to rezone but the rezoning would not be final
until you were able to get on opprovable declaration of covenants and restrictions. Option number
3 would be essentially to go with the declaration of restrictions and resolution I presented to
you on Friday. Option number 4 would be to go with the resolution that I presented to you today,
the first one being a straight rezoning, if you will. The second resolution presented to you is
the one that is a little bit longer and sets forth a variety of conditions. Now, from a legal
standpoint, my recommendations, I guess this comes at a time, where 1 guess I put myself on
the line a little bit for you here, my personal preference from a legal standpoint would be one
of two things. One, the longer resolution that I drafted which sets forth clot of criteria that
you have looked at in the whereas clauses and sets forth various conditions. This however is
a straight rezoning with a condition at the very end that says, we just added it tonight, that
says a declaration of covenants and restrictions will be entered into after the rezoning occurs.
- Now, the danger there of course is that once the rezoning occurs, what's to make them to sign
the declaration of covenants and restrictions, so there's the one option. The other option is
to simply eliminate the declaration of covenants and restrictions all together and go with the
rest of the resolution, which sets forth o variety of conditions. The problem with that though
it becomes on issue of enforce-ability later, as against future owners, not so much the initial
owners, but they'd know the zoning and we could bring a zoning action against them if they
didn't comply. But in the event they were future owners, would not have o very good base,
showing they hadn't known of these particular conditions on this property. The other options
6
that I hod referred to a little earlier which was adopt a resolution of intent "and develop a
declaration immediately afterwards and then do your final resolution is the one that appears
to have passed muster in the Court of Appeals for the Town of Flowerville.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY CORPUS-Villoge of Flowerville.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Villoge of Flowerville.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Poul would you explain that again please?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The option of giving on attempt to rezone once a declaration has been
achieved, the declaration of restrictions has been achieved, on agreement between the developer,
the Town, the owner of property, then the rezoning seems to be the one that has been tried
and tested in the Court of Appeals and has won. However, the Attorney that I hod spoke with
that was on the case, feels that after going through the Court of Appeals on the case which
is the highest court in New York State, he feels that almost of any kind of rezoning is permissible
at this point, in 'track with conditional, whatever you like. Which means that the resolution,
that I also drofted which is that long one with the condition of declaration at the end, that very
one may pass muster in the courts as well, however, we hove not hod the opportunity to litigate
that type of resolution.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Con I ask you the difference Paul between the resolution of intent
and then hove the covenants drawn, verses the resolution that already has the covenants in
it. Are you telling me that the covenants may change?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The covenants that I gave to you on Friday, that resolution, those covenants,
I'm very honestly I'm not satisfied with. They do not contain enough conditions in them and
also its my feeling that they may very well be objectoble to the developer. It's kind of like
when we do the PUD's, you'd really wont to sit down with the developer, his attorney's and the
owner and get this thing drafted together so everyone is in agreement and you know what it
is they're willing to agree to. Obviously, if two parties can't come to agreement or you don't
like what they're willing to do with their property, than you don't hove to rezone.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-1 don't know how the rest of you feel but I'm not going to approve
the non-significance.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Lets take a look. Are you finished with?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think I've covered everything unless anybody has any questions.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Stay near by at your choir please.
A T TOR NE Y D USEK-Sure.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We may need some answers. I appreciate the work that you've done
and I con certainly certify that you've been put in a great deal of time, with Karla also, Karla
Corpus our Deputy Town Attorney. We're trying to resolve on issue and do it in such a way
that in would be in accordance with the consensus of this Board as its last meeting, where in
the Board said yes provided that certain restrictions can be put into place, some enforceable
restrictions, then the Board would be inclined to go ahead and rezone this for the purpose of
affordable housing as spelled out at the last public hearing. The first issue as our Town Attorney
has mentioned is the question of significance of the SEQRA standpoint, State Law Environmental
Quality Review Act. The document presented to us tonight is interesting because this is the
first time that I've ever seen this one. I heard about it this afternoon, was totally unaware
that the Planning Deportment hod prepared anything of the sort. Its very unique because normally
if there is any kind of a problem of any sort it's brought to my attention and nothing in any
fashion had come to my attention. I don't know if any Board members were aware of this.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 sow this at the time the papers were filed I think with the Board
of Appeals. I've seen this before.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You have seen this?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes because I asked to receive everything that hod been filed for
the ZBA.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 was not aware of this. But in reading it, just sitting here, I see not
sufficient information, I see that in a couple of places. But I look down at item D and it says
is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts,
and the answer that's clearly checked is no. So apparently the Planning Department has reviewed
this and found that there perhaps is not sufficient information but they still don't believe that
there likely to be controversy. At least that's my opinion of the answer here. I also will bring
to the attention of the Board that this form, although is extremely important, extremely legal,
is routinely used by us in these matters. I dare soy that we have not gone into great detoil as
to the particular questions related here with any of the rezonings that we hove done this year
or lost year. We did one recently out at the airport. We took a Light Industrial 3 ocre zone
and mode it Light Industrial 1 ocre and we were convinced it was, an appropriate use of the
property. We did not, to my knowledge, hove soil test information. We did not, to my knowledge,
hove any of the other information that apparently the Planning Department is asking for here.
I'm wondering if we're treating people fairly. I think we should look at that. If indeed the
Planning Deportment says they don't believe this will be controversial, if they're looking for
something we haven't looked for before. I'm asking why. I'll be anxious to hear comments from
the Board.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well Steve, my reaction wasn't from anything 1 had read from the
Planning Deportment frankly. It was whether or not we ore passing these neg Dec.s and I've
hod thoughts about this before, just for the matter in course of housekeeping and I've frankly
being troubled by it because as the development happens more and more in this Town, we ore
going to have consequences of it that we didn't hove when development was spread further oport.
I hove been concerned enough and this has been before I saw the Planning Department thing,
that I stopped in Paul's office with some environmental questions so this is not a new thought
for me and its not a result of the Planning Deportment form. 1 do have some concerns and I
do' think, we con not soy thoroughly analyzed this project as for as environmentaf concerns.
My real concern is the septic systems and I wont some kind of a study either by our ov !gineers
or I wont to see CT Mole study or one or the other. As I said, Pout will tell your ressed
that concern to him lost week when I stopped into your office.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'd like to reaffirm what I said a few minutes ago. We don't take these
forms lightly but normally what we're looking for is o very specific negative that has been brought
to our attention by the Planning Deportment not sufficient information.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well I'm not fishing but I just don't think that we have enough
information to make this judgement and I'm not comfortable making judgements when I don't
feel I hove the type of information that I need and that's why I requested it last week.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Were we able to get any of the answers Mrs. Monohon hod asked?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Councilman Monohon hod asked a variety of questions, the lost of which
was the SEQRA and unfortunately the best information I hove is what I've already given you
on SEQRA. I don't hove anything more to add in that area. The other questions that had been
asked concerned issues of the criteria that would be used to pick people for these homes. What
happens if they leave after they've bought it, and what kind of controls that the houses
will stay affordable, and we receive information from Adams and Rich in response to each of
those questions basically indicating that the houses, applications will be taken on a first come
first serve basis. There will be notices published in local newspapers and posted in public work
Places and the applications must be qualified on basis of income and mortgages qualify on income
and credit. At least fifty percent of the approved applicants con hove incomes of no greater
than 100 percent of the median family income in the Town of Queensbury and the balance con
not hove any greater than 120.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, con I interrupt you? How ore we going to determine the median
income in the Town of Queensbury? To the best of my knowledge, everything in our
comprehensive master plan is based on Warren County, not on the Town of Queensbury. 1 don't
know if we've ever done a study with just the Town of Queensbury.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Adams and Rich will rely, they soy, upon the Planning and Community
Development of Warren County to set that median income.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Those figures ore Warren County figures, that we have available.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 don't know if they hove separate figures for Queensbury, sometimes they
do.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not the lost time 1 checked but maybe I didn't get the correct
information, I don't know.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The second question is what provisions is Home Front making to insure
that the new homeowners will not be able to make a quick profit off any grant funds and it
says Home Front will apply formula set out in the Affordable Corporation Program Regulations.
Home Front will however extend mandatory ownership provision to 15 years and will require
repayment based upon on amortization of profit based upon that 15 years. Home Front will
be responsible for periodic checks of ownership and will require periodical reports of the
homeowners association.
8
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That really didn't answer my question. My question was, was if
the original homeowner, I'm just going to give on example, was transferred out of Town, I'm
not concerned with the 25,000 dollars grant, because I knew what was going to hoppen 'to that,
but what guarantee to we have that that house is going to go bock into the affordable housing
pool. Or is it going to go for 150,000 dollars, if this is what the guy can get someone to pay
for?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Home Front is here tonight, maybe they have on answer to that question.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Adams, would you address that please? Identify yourself, name
and address.
CHARLES ADAMS-I'm the applicant in this petition. To my knowledge there's absolutely nothing
to keep the house being sold for 150,000 dollars. However the provision is that whatever profit
is paid on the house, goes back into the pool for affordable housing. In other words it goes bock
in a pro-rate formula given that State of New York such that the pro-rote, whatever profit —
is made on that house under the ... 15 years, will go back to the State pool for Affordable Housing.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think we're still stuck or a stumbling block here and that's the
environmental concerns. Mr. Gorolski is here and he prepared this form. Would you come to
the microphone please? Let me just ask you a couple of questions. I can obviously tell for sure
what you meant when there's not sufficient information. But what 1 don't understand is that
if you don't have sufficient information for the iter,7s up above, how can you indeed say that
there is not likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
JOHN GORALSKI, Plonner-I answered that question based on, obviously the fact that you hod
a public hearing, there were not a swarm of people coming in here objecting to the project.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Not on environmental question.
MR. GORALSKI-Environmental aspects of this project, that question, as for as I'm concern
is not a scientific question, its something of on ��pinion, is there going to be controversy. To
my knowledge, there weren't a lot of people at the public hearing ...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But there were olot of people of the public hearing which lasted 2 hours
and 40 minutes, as 1 recall.
MR. GORALSKI-1 filled that out before the public hearing.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What you are really saying John, excuse me Steve, what you're_'
really saying that your answer to D, was an answer that stood all by itself, it didn't relate for
anything that you hod answered in C.
MR. GORALSKI-1 filled that out, nobody had come into to our office and objected to this
rezoning.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-When you soy that there is not sufficient information provided to be
sure that there will be no impact to groundwater, do you mean that they're looking for soil tests
or pits or some other, perk tests?
MR. GORALSKI-Those questions were based on the fact that when the SEQRA, when the original
SEQRA was done for the zoning ordinances as a whole was adopted, the generic impact statement,
the answers to the generic impact statement involved, the fact that most of the densities were
based on character aspects of the land, soil type, depth of the groundwater, depth of the bedrock,
that type of thing. All that relates to, if you put a septic system on, if you put a foundation
on the property, that type of thing. I could not say that by doubling the density, you were not
changing the answer to that question. I don't hove the expertise or any information that says
it. The example that you gave before with rezoning out at the Industrial Park, out there they
hove sewers.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-They don't in that particular case.
MR. GORALSKI-They do in the Adirondack Industrial Park, they a// hove sewers there.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-On that side of the road? —`
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That's why in that case there was sufficient information. Here 1 didn't
have enough information to feel comfortable.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There's not sufficient information provided to segregate this lot as
unique within the SR 1A zone. The original density was justified based on the physical limitations
of the land, this rezoning for a social need does not address the originally defined criteria.
What do you mean by that?
MR. GORALSKI-This property does not appear to me to be any different from the Property
next to it or the property next to that or the property next to that, they were all zoned as SR
IA. The SEQRA regulations ore in place so that you consider environmental impact. I think
that if you're going to rezone this based on, lets say, social need thpt, you feel is overwhelming
and more important, could possibly involve on impact statement, that should be stated.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Do you have any real reason to believe, based on your experience in
this Town, that that particular parcel is going to be destroyed or harmed by the density proposed
here due to the septic system involved? Do you have anything specific?
MR. GORALSKI-That particular parcel?
I
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-I don't think destruction of that particular parcel is really the issue. I think...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Do you have anything to indicate strongly or anything concrete to indicate
that in your opinion the groundwater flowing through that area would be harmed more there
than any other land in the Town with the some type of soil?
MR. GORALSKI-If the density is doubled?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Correct. When you soy that, realize as I believe is correct there are
many, many lots in that very close neighborhood of equal size as proposed, half acre or less.
So when you're saying double, double what? Double the new zoning as of October 1st, 88. Not
double what is characteristic of the neighborhood.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. I'm not on engineer, 1 don't know. The answers to those questions were
based on the generic impact statement and the SEQRA review of the original SR IA designation.
What I'm saying is, that they did the studies or whoever did the studies establishing the density
there of SR lA, okay, they hod a certain set of criteria. Now, the proposing to change this to
SR20, I would not have any information in front of me saying, well the some criteria that was
looked at originally, has been looked at again and there's no impact based on those criteria.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you.
MR. GORALSKI-I'd just like to say, I didn't plan on it or I would have dressed properly.
T SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No problem but you're here and your name happens to be here right
next to where I'm supposed to sign. I would be uncomfortable signing this document because
I don't know if what you've got here is right. I think there's sufficient information based on
what ...
MR. GORALSKI-I've said this before to the Planning Board and I'll soy this to you, those are
just proposed recommended answers. if you feel differently than obviously that's your option
because you're the ones who are answering the questions.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Correct and that's the weight the Town Board has to bear, as we do
each time we authorize signing of any one of these and we are truly very careful. This is the
first time I've ever seen any of these come back with handwritten notes like this on any of the
items that hove come before us, gone through your department. 1 don't ever remember any
others coming back with any handwritten notes of any sort or certainly getting to this stage
in the game before somebody gives this to us. I find this to be frustrating.
MR. GORALSKi-That document was sent up several weeks ago before you had the original public
hearing. The fact that ...
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Sent up to who John?
MR. GORALSKI-The Attorney's office. That's the best I can do.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Will you confirm that you've had this for a period of time?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Korlo believes that we did hove it before the public hearing.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. 11l1 ask another question, item C and i hate to labor this
but we've got to get through this, page 2, item C, it says, could action result in any adverse
effects associated with the following, existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or
quantity and it goes on with others and the answer that's put in, by your department, is no.
Excuse me, its not by your, its put in by somebody.
iV
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 believe Karla signed that one.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Karla signed that. Its says no.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is the other option that the Board has. We tried to create a couple
of these for you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There's two page 21s, is that it?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, you would use either one.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 tried to give you a variety of things that you could take o look at and --j
modify, should you not like any particular one.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-1 don't think you can do any of them tonight anywoys. You've got
too damn many ... up at the lost minute today, I'm not ready to vote ...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well my concern is, very bluntly, George and everybody, that I'm not
trying to get into a fight here. My concern is that we've known this project is around for a
considerable period of time now. Initially it was a new project, now its been a long time and
we've discussed a whole bunch of issues. We hod a public hearing a couple of weeks ago where
we spent 2 hours and 40 minutes and no one once raised any of these questions. That was the
time and the place for it, not now, we should never hod gotten this for. The Board looked at
all the information then. The Board mode the decision that if the proper legal language could
be drown up, to go ahead with this project. I think its unfair, its unreasonable, its inexcusoble
to get to this stage and now find out that this is what the case is.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I don't think the Board said that if you draw up the paperwork and
write it up, we're comfortable with it, we'll vote on it and pass it. What we said, is we're very
uncomfortable rezoning without any conditions.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Correct.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What con you come up with? That doesn't mean that we were all
happy and would vote yes just because we wrote some paperwork up.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thot's correct but our Attorney had been working to draft this document.
Never were there concerns expressed about this which has to come before it. That's where
I'm getting upset. Had this come up, we could have spent some time addressing this and then
worked on this. Now we've done a tremendous amount of work, probably 40 or 50, maybe 60
hours in the lost 2 weeks on this, and we're saying we can't even get over this first hurdle because
something has been out there and nobody bothered to bring it to our attention. That's whots
bothering me.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well all I con soy is that 1 did go to the Attorney the first chance
I had to, as i kept saying, thought more and more and did some more thinking about this, after
the public hearing, with the questions that I had. So they're not questions that popped up tonight.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 wished you had come to me and I would have gotten on engineer to
do the study if that's what it takes or asked Home Front to have that work done.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well I thought when I reloyed my concerns to the Town Attorney
since he was working on it, I thought I was taking the proper channels. If I didn't, I apologize.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I hove to make a comment that I think this is really a grand stand
play on someone or somebody or some persons or some department's place. I think that when
we left our meeting, our scheduled meeting 2 weeks ago it was with the understanding that
this property would be rezoned if it were possible for the legal department to come up with
some sort of deed restriction or covenant that would only allow affordable housing to be built
on the property. Now I maybe naive but that, in black and white when I left that meeting 2
weeks ago, that was my contention. I certainly didn't expect to come back here and be
embarrassed and for lack of work to do, to hove on environmental impact statement drown
up by my Planning Deportment, to be presented to me tonight that I hove not seen. 1 think
its unfair and I think its unfair, whoever was involved in it, to do it.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm not sure that we should put the blame at the Attorney's office
or at the Planning Department. I think you as on elected official are getting pressured into
making a decision. I never said that I would pass this if I could come up with restrictions. I
said write something up that we con review. It was written up, I looked at it Sunday or Saturday.
Again it come from my Attorney's office who worked very hard. I'm not even in favor of having
him on this in diversion of other things but he did and he did it well. I'm not blaming ...I
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Mr. Montesi, did you see the environmental impact statement on
Friday? On Friday?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We didn't give it any concern at the public hearing.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Thot's my point, I did not soy previous to this that it was a guaranteed
vote get either? All I said ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You just said it now.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That was the information that was to be presented to us. I did not
soy ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Coll the vote.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Hey, I'm not the, I'm ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Coll the vote on the environmental issue. Don't be embarrassed by
it, call the vote, maybe you'll find that some of the Board members just don't want this project
to go for a multitude of reasons, other than the environmental issues but.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Lynn talks about being embarrassed. As on elected official, I frankly
am a little tired of picking up the paper every day and seeing the mess the elected officials
in this Country hove gotten the citizens into with the S and L scandals, the HUD scandals,
etcetera. As on elected official, I would be more embarrassed, if I don't do my job properly
and all the facets that I am supposed to undertake.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I've given this subject a great deal of thought for a number of weeks
and again the lost night, I had the pleasure for the first time in a couple of years to go to the
Performing Art Center and i listened to John Denver for a little while. I kind of enjoyed his
music, also his message. But there's olot in the message about the environment and I support
it, I applaud it, his message about the environment. But I also supported the other message
that I heard there and its something about our society and how we do things and do what's right
and do what's fair and do what's just and I've been toying with that concept of problem for the
last few weeks. I spent some time Saturday doing one of my favorite things, as was walking
around what I consider to be my property or our property, saying, oh its nice to own a piece
of property and I said I'm glad I bought it years ago when it was inexpensive and what about
the people today who can't afford maybe to do that. Then I remembered that somebody said
there are 100 and some so called affordable houses on the market at the moment in this area.
Some people said at the meeting lost week, there are lots of affordable housing here already,
we don't need anything special. But than I heard the other side of the question that said, well
there ore special things attached with this particular parcel, like 25,000 dollar grant per building
perhaps to help people to be able to afford this which might otherwise be an unaffordable number.
I've been trying to balance all those things and I come to the conclusion to support what I had
thought o few weeks ago, that I want to do whatever it takes to get this project through. I
wont this rezoning passed. I would like to see it pass tonight and I came here prepared to debate
the issues related to what the Attorney hopefully would prepare for us in his resolution setting
forth the trend of conditions. I hod been convinced in my mind that there was no environmental
concern because this is a residential area, it would stay residential. We've done no more than
cluster housing here as we had just had approved by our Planning Board o few weeks ago on
upper Sherman Avenue. The soils here ore no different in a negative sense based on Planning
Department data than the soils on Upper Sherman Avenue, which ore considered to be fast perk
and therefore perhaps of concern. These ore not nearly as fast perk although they are reasonably
good from the information that I've seen. So I said if the Planning Board passed the other thing
which really is exactly the same thing although even closer together than these houses, how
can there possibly be on environmental concern. No one raised the issue. So I set that totally
aside, I knew we had to get through it but, again expected no problems. I don't know where
to go. I heard Mr. Montesi soy, lets call the vote on it. In order to do that we have to have
on introduction to it. I've been cautioned by our Attorney that since there is this one page in
the record indicating that there may not be sufficient information, this may at some time haunt
us in the future. If someone wishes to challenge this, it may possibly be on impediment, it may
-- not. The Town Board is charged with the responsibility for taking the hard look, not the Planning
Deportment although that is port of their function here to work for us. I don't know how you
feel. i personally would like to go ahead and soy that there's no problem with that. I'd like
to go ahead with rezoning and debate the issues on the restrictions to be placed on that rezoning.
That's my personal opinion.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, I'll tell you how I feel and you know that I have said, time
and time again, we need affordable housing in this Town and i still stick with that. On the other
12
hand there is this thing of doing affordable housing and its doing all the steps correctly and
you know I have been working for a long time trying to get some of these steps in motion and
do it correctly. i also told Paul last week that I wanted an ordinance to study and a workshop
on the ordinance. I am not overly happy with the ordinance that was sent to our house, to be
honest with you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You mean the rezoning document?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Because he has yet to do the ordinance. He's indicating in there that
he's still working on that, this is something special.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm sorry, okay, the document he sent to our house but I do believe
there was on ordinance attached to it, if I remember right.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 think you're referring to the rezoning resolution itself.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-And the declaration of covenants and restrictions.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes. To me this is much, much too important piece of legislation
to pass as New York State did the sales tax law in the middle of the night as I found out the
other night, that our Representative in Congress changed the insured top on savings account
and one was the S and L by changing a couple of words in a proposed bill which is one reason
we're in this S and L mess that every person in this Country is going to owe 2,000 dollars and
I frankly did not come on this Board to be known as a sloppy legislature for expediency sake.
That really is my position. I think we have to sit down, we hove to work with this, we hove
to get our facts in order and we have to pass this in a logical manner. I have no problem with
on intent if everything turns out the way it should be, I am not going to give anybody a blank
check and I think this is something we can sit down, we need to discuss it phrase by phrase and
we need to work on it. That's my feeling.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What specifically do you want to see done with the Environmental
Assessment?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 think we need an engineering study by somebody that we're not
having some other problems and if they hove to do one for it to come before the Planning Board
anyway, it shouldn't take that long and I think we need a perk test and I'm sure that material
is already underway and is presently being done and if not, it should be. In fact 1 would think
it would have been one of the first things that they really should have done to that property
there.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask. Please identify yourself, name and address, affiliation.
CAROL P UL VER-Executive Director of Homefront. Mrs. Monahan do you require that for
everyone that asks for a rezoning?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mrs. Pulver if this weren't for the social reasons that I'm entertaining
this, I would not even entertain rezoning there in the first place. Does that answer your question?
MRS. PULVER-Well we are in the process of getting all the engineering, we're in the process
of getting it to go before site plan.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You're also asking for a rezoning ...
MRS. PULVER-1 wish you had told us 2 weeks ago that you were going to require this, we could
have had it all for you by tonight.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 think you were so busy telling us what we had to do the last meeting
that you were even thinking what you should be doing and what time you should be doing it in.
MRS. PULVER-No, we hove been spending the lost 2 weeks asking the Attorney's office what
we should be doing to help you. We have been trying to do everything we possibly could to
accommodate this Board and the Town Attorney so that we could get this rezoning so that we
could get forty families into the Town of Queensbury and bring in $750,000.00.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Again, I will bring up that, this is very nicely but I wont to make
sure that those forty families are protected. The other question that I ..
MRS. PULVER-Protected from whom?
r
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1111 tell you one reason why I am very concerned about the septic
system because I have hod people that hove become port of homeowners associations and hod
to leave homeowners associations because dues become so high they couldn't afford to live there.
I'm concerned about septic systems for this reason. i live on one. I'm personally responsible
for mine. Any damage I do to that septic system, I hove to repair. Okay? You may hove septic
systems owned by homeowners association, if they don't work properly, there's going to be a
charge to the homeowners association which is going to increase their charges through the year.
MRS. PUL VER-Are you concerned with the homeowners charge going up or their septics?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The two are related, that's what I'm saying to you.
MRS. PUL VER-No I don't think so ... their own individual septic tanks.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Thot's right, they're going to be owned by the homeowners ...
MRS. PUL VER-But they could have their own individual septic tanks.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That isn't the way its ...
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Isn't the septic systems a discussion for the Planning Board and not
the Town Board?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Hold it, hold it a minute, let me, I hate to, I don't hove o gavel here,
but darn it rather than waste olot of energy, I explained to the group the lost time when we
had the public hearing, there's olot of things that ore kind of fringed in this discussion. Some
things properly belong before this Board, some things belong before the Planning Board. Where
that boundary line is sometimes questionable. I don't think the question in my opinion would
be, the question is how many septic tanks does not belong to this Board, it belongs before the
Planning Board or the ZBA or this Board meeting as the Board of Health or whatever. It doesn't
belong before the Town Board for the rezoning question. I think I can make that determination
here I may be challenged in court. The social concerns are border line things, they have been
referred to by our Attorney in his resolution as on explanation for this proposed change of zone
and the Attorney feels comfortable with that. So, he's better knowledge of the law. But some
of the other things are really on the fringe. I believe however that septic systems ore clearly
separate. The perk rate out there, yes, although it relates directly to septic systems, sure the
perk rate and the doubling of the density, if there could be some proof of change in groundwater,
yes that's o concern. It's something that should be discussed. But I personally, I've lived here
a few years and I feel comfortable, I know the soils there, I've looked at the soil maps, I feel
comfortable that those soils are okoy, my personal opinion.
MRS. PULVER-We also know that the SEQRA con be addressed by the Planning Board so that
there isn't, the sewers addressed... now ...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Now, there's two different stages ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Our obligations think they ore.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have an obligation for this SEQRA as for as the rezoning for density
purposes ore concerned.
MRS. PUL VER-Okoy.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The Planning Board have a SEQRA potential for the relocation of the
streets, that again is not our concern, buffer zone, that's all Planning Board.
MRS. PUL VER-Well I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to do both.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, I believe we're just looking now at anything related to density.
I'm looking of the Attorney. Say yes or no?
ATTORNEY D USEK-This particular SEQRA was divided up. You'll do yours, the Planning Board.
There is on option if we had gone the other way but due to expediency we thought we would
try to keep them split.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 thought that was the case. Lets say most appropriate, we're here,
we're being asked, should we rezone this and make it half acre lots in o cluster fashion, even
that goes to the Planning Board, so we make half acre lots so people can afford to buy the
property and have a house to live in. That's what we're being asked, bottom line. We're also
being asked is this the appropriate place in the Town of Queensbury. I looked at the map, 1
said, sure, there ore olot of half acre lots in that area. The property is set off on the side of
14
the rood. If people wont to live there, fine, it looks good to me. I have no objections to it.
MRS. PUL VER-Well, Mr. Adamson was accused of putting the cort before the horse from a
Planning Board....we just did not feel that we should continue to pursue that for the rezoning.
That, that was going to be a Planning Board issue although we were working on it ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The whole projects gone to bid already, you hod prices on it. That's
a little presumptuous.
(Tape not audible)
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What would happen Mrs. Pulver if Homefront did not exist next year,
its a buyoble corporation? I mean its a corporation that you are the employee of ...
MRS. PULVER-The New York State Affordable Housing would take it.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So then we would have our covenants or our restrictions will have
to go through New York State?
MRS. PULVER-We come under the guide lines of New York State ... we our sponsored by the
New York State Housing Coalition. If next year there was no Homefront, then the New York
State Housing Coalition would pick up for us.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask you port of Mr. Montesi's question because I think I hear
where you are coming from. When we left here lost week, or 2 weeks ago, we were talking
in terms of some deed restrictions where the Town would be a party. That is not, as I understand
what the Attorney has proposed. What the Attorney has proposed.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You've thrown in at the end.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, the resolution that I presented to you this evening contains many
of the provisions that were in the declaration before and has a provision that says that the
declaration will be executed, so it is filed and of record.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right but above and before that, you've set forth that this as a conditional
zoning which means regardless of who owns it or who controls it, certain requirements would
have to be met first and that would definitely be enforceable right from the start without having
to go through the State.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Thot's why you would wont it filed.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's was the point I was trying to get at. The last conditions were
over and above those others and I thought the others were quite restricted to begin with. It
had to be a non-for-profit corporation. It has to hove certain number of homes available for
people with certain income ranges. There has to be green space, it has to be built out to its
maximum right-of-way. There has to be a bonded, posted, all these other things I've read as
I've flipped through here. All those Ron, ore enforceable regardless of whether its the State
or anybody else. So it could not be used if rezoned, it could not be used for anything except
this very specific purpose.
MRS. PULVER-I'd like to ask you Ron, what is it that you don't like about this? 1 feel you're
very uncomfortable with the project, you know you're very uncomfortable ... 1 don't understand
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm uncomfortable with rezoning a parcel of land specifically, a very
small parcel of 22 acres for a very specific purpose, as I've said it before, my biggest concern
is, the next developer that walks in the door, that has a good perk tests, just like this and says
I'm going to work through Homefront, how do I say no. How many times can 1 soy ...
MRS. PULVER-Why would you wont to say no if ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Because I do hove a Master Plan that says, this is what the zoning —
is. So what you're proposing is that I should take the Moster Plan, throw it away and when ever
anybody wants to come into my Town, buy a piece of land for affordable housing, I should let
them do it.
MRS. PUL VER-No ...
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's what you're saying to me. That's what my concern is and that's...
MRS. PULVER-No I believe the Master Plan is to be added to and to behave better ...
R
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Thot's what we would like to do but maybe we're not ready for that
at this point. Obviously there's some concern by 5 Board members here. Maybe 2 or 3
(tape turned)
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I have a question. Supposing the rezoning goes through as
it is and I think it needs some work on it frankly, but lets just suppose it does. Alright, let's
suppose and I'm just going to the worse case scenario because I think you have to, playing the
devil's advocate, lets suppose this project for one reason or another can't get off the ground.
What happens to that rezoning that's sitting out there, that's nothing's happening on it?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-If this is rezoned, in the first instance the property would be eligible to
use by anyone...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, I'm talking about if we use the restricted one, I'm not
talking about the blanket one.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. First of all, well if you use the restricted one, you have 2 protections.
First of all you hove the Zoning Ordinance which you're allowed to enforce as a Town in both
Justice Court and Supreme Court. You also have the protection that if you're a party to the
declaration of restrictions or the deed restrictions, that you can enforce those as a matter of
rights civilly as well. If something should happen and Homefront should not develop the property,
the way this is structured, the next owner's of the property would also be locked in and bound
to these some agreements. Did I answer your question?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What these people hove been doing, I think, is that in agreeing to this
kind of level of restriction, they're really taking a very large gamble. The owner of the property
is saying, this is for a particular purpose and I hove no idea what the selling price of this property
is, I believe it's public but I don't know about that, I believe its probably selling at a very
reasonable price to make interesting to people, but yet he's going to be held so that he can't
use it for any other purpose if it's rezoned. It's got to be a pretty good level of confidence.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But then, Paul, you know I've played around these games a long
time, he goes to wherever he goes, I don't know if he goes to ZBA, Court or what and says you
hove to relieve me of this document because economic climate up there is such now that I can't
get anybody to buy or to build on this with this restriction and you're causing me on unnecessary
hardship and I want to be relieved of this hardship.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-In the first instance he maybe able to get some relief concerning some
minor variations such as lot lines, setbacks. He maybe able to on some of the very minor
provisions of this but to the most port he's not going to be able to get relief from the bulk of
this document. Because it's just like, nobody can come in for instance and get relief from the
entire Zoning Ordinance if they are in on SR20, they would have to or an SR 1 acre for instance,
forget that we even have this, there's only a certain amount of relief they con get out of the
Zoning Board. The only wholesale relief that he could get from this document would be to come
back to this Board and ask for it to legislate another zoning. So I think as for as a wholesale,
cutting out of many of these provisions, I don't think you have to worry about that. I think it
is possible that some minor variations could be caused to the document by the ZBA but they
would be minor in my opinion.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any Board members have any additional comments or questions?
MRS. PULVER-1 was going to say, Mr. Adams is here, he'd be glad to answer any questions that
you may hove ...
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. If we hove any, we'll ask. Any other comments or questions?
Okay, the item before us is a resolution adopting determination of non significance of rezoning.
We've got 2 possible variations. One says, two that ore drawn here, one says that we need more
information and the other forms says that we've taken a look at this and we don't believe there
would be any substantial adverse environmental impacts. What is your pleasure? We hove the
resolution, someone may introduce it if you wish, we can then have a discussion again and vote.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'll introduce it.
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSED which was the appropriate environmental impact statement adjoining
the resolution of non significance and agreed that the one prepared by Deputy Town Attorney,
Karla Corpus, stating no, that there would not be adverse environmental effects, would be the
correct form.
16
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING
K
RESOLUTION NO. 445, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Borgos.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain property
owned by Anthony P. Ricciordelli, Jr., Carol A. Ricciordelli and Robert Ricciordelli, Town of
Queensbury Tax Mop No. : 148-1-7. 1, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions
undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is on unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations
of the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained
in Section 617. 11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not hove a significant effect on the environment,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed
responses inserted in Part iI of the said Environmental Assessment Form ore satisfactory and
approved, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part Ill of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative DecloMotion is hereby approved and the Town Clerk —'
is hereby authorized and directed to file the some in accordance with the provisions of the general
regulations of the Deportment of Environmental Conservation.
.The following vote was token on the 6th day of August, 1990:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Borgos
Noes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan
Absent: None
RESOLUTION DEFEATED
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The vote is three to two, the motion is defeated, the resolution is
defeated. Based on the opinion of our Attorney, we really can't go any further. It'll serve no
useful purpose at this point.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 446, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenzo.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn Regular Session
and move into Executive Session to discuss litigation.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
♦ r�
RESOLUTIONy TO RECONVENE TO REGULAR SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 447, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Kurosoko.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Executive
Session and enter into Regular Session of the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monohon, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
SUPERVISOR BORGOS noted that the Town Board will hold a Special Town Board meeting,
Thursday, August 9th, 7:00 p.m., workshop session, conference room in the other building, to
discuss recommendations and listen to the report of the Committee study the volunteer fire
fighters service awards program. I'll ask the Clerk to please add, and such other business that
may come before the Board.
OPEN FORUM
9:25 p.m.
PLINEY TUCKER, Word 4-Questioned why the street lights on Sherman Island Road were not
put in?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Shermon Island Road and Merritt Rood need to be done, I need
the numbers of the pole first.
MR. TUCKER-They were approved, passed in a resolution a couple of months ago.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay, we'll contact Nimo and remind them again.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned whether the attorney hod reviewed the situation on Sherman Island
Rood.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Pout Naylor and myself and Leon Steves, a surveyor for the Town, visited
Sherman Island Rood, a turn in the Rood which the residents complained of. A result of the
meeting, Paul Naylor had indicated that during the next month or so, if his schedule permits
for him, he would undertake several things to help improve that road. One, trim bock bushes
as much as legally can do on our right-of-way. Second step, possibly put double yellow lines
down the rood to help guide people. Pout thought it may be appropriate to put up no parking
sides on that particular rood. Paul is also looking at the possibility of trying to do something
with the rood surface itself, as a lost resort. The thought was to take a conservotive approach.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that there's been complaints expressed with exiting onto Corinth
Road safely.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Corinth Rood is a County Rood, there's not olot of control we hove locally,
maybe the County could do something to improve that particular intersection. The only other
alternative the Town may have is to find o different access point.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned time period.
PAUL NAYLOR, Highway Superintendent-Middle of September. Suggested that the Town Board
pass a resolution approving the yellow double lines. Noted that the day they observed traffic
at that particular corner, 75 percent of the vehicles belonged to Niagara Mohawk.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned Town Attorney's decision regarding Mrs. Pulver not having a conflict
of interest with the proposed project of Affordable Housing.
-- ATTORNEY DUSEK-For the record, I did not make that decision. Karla Corpus was at that
meeting that that decision was made. I don't know if I know all of the facts at this point.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Paul, given that, had that resolution passed tonight and it went back
to site plan review and the Planning Board, would you recommend to Mrs. Pulver not to vote
as a Planning Board member on this project?
COUNCILMAN K UR OSA K A-She's got to be biased to the project.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 would hove to give it some thought. I don't wont to commit myself one
way or another just at this point.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-My question is, she gets paid by Homefront whose the sponsor
of the project, she's very adamantly in favor of it ...
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The issue here is that, yes it certainly could appear to be a conflict, although
I don't want to necessarily soy at this point, yes there's a conflict because, you con some times
hove on interest in corporations and still be able to stay involved with the project and still come
before the Board.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think all of us ore concerned by even the appearance ...
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1111 be happy to take a look at the situation in depth and then issue o legal
opinion.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'd like you to do that. I personally would recommend that she not vote.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 would too.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Is it legal according to our code of ethics.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-My job as attorney is to render opinions if the Board wants and I'll be happy
to review the facts and render on opinion to you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Agreeoble to the Board.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
9:45 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOL UTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 448, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Betty Monahan.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approve the Town Board
Minutes of July 24th, 1990.
i
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: —
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2- CRONIN ROAD BRIDGE
RESOLUTION NO. 449, 1990, Introduced by George Kurosoko who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously authorized the purchase and
installation of o concrete culvert bridge to replace an existing culvert bridge located on Cronin
Road in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the contract for installation of the aforesaid culvert bridge was awarded to Kubricky
Construction Corporation, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of authorizing on amendment
to said contact in the nature of a change order, copies of said change order with appropriate
memo of telecons attached thereto,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes
the change order described in the preambles hereof, and further authorizes on increase in the
contract price to be paid to Kubricky Construction Corporation, over the amount bid, to the
amount of $72,781.03.
19
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 450, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds, and
WHEREAS, said requests hove been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office
and the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOL VED, that the funds be transferred as listed below:
ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
FROM TO AMOUNT
A-23-5-1680-407 A-23-5-1680-440 $2,000.00
(Data Processing Moint.) (Data Processing Misc.)
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 428, 1990 REGARDING AMENDMENT TO ZONING
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 451, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenzo.
WHEREAS, resolution no. 428, 1990 set a hearing on on amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
and
WHEREAS, said resolution was in error as the hearing is to be held in the Queensbury Activities
Center rather than the Supervisor's Conference Room, as stated in the resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that resolution no. 428, 1990 is hereby amended to read that the public hearing
will be held at the Queensbury Activities Center.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 426 and 427, 1990 REGARDING GR UNDBORG
AND TOOMEY PROPERTIES
RESOLUTION NO. 452, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its odoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, resolution no. 426 and 427, 1990 set hearings on certain properties, and
WHEREAS, said resolutions were in error as the hearings are to be held in the Queensbury
Activities Center rather than the Supervisor's Conference Room, as stated in the resolutions,
0
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the resolutions no. 426 and 427, 1990, ore hereby rescinded.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE COMPANY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
RESOLUTION NO. 453, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded—
by Betty Monahon.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.,
entered into on agreement doted December 30, 1988, and such agreement is still in full force
and effect, and
WHEREAS, said agreement set forth a number of terms and conditions, including an agreement
that the Fire Company would not purchase or enter into any binding contract purchase, any
piece or apparatus of equipment, at a cost exceeding the sum of $50,000.00 without prior approval
of the Town Fire Study Committee and approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
and
WHEREAS, the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., has indicated it desires to
purchase o Spartan Command Cob (Rescue Truck) for the sum of approximately $328,856.00,
and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Fire Study Committee has voted unanimously for West Glens Falls
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., to look into purchasing the Spartan Command Cab, and
WHEREAS, it is the understanding of the Town Board that the full sum of money involved for
the purchase will come from a truck fund which is being accumulated by the West Glens Falls
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., for this specific purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the purchase
of o Spartan Command Cob for the approximate sum of $328,856.00 by the West Glens Falls
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., subject to any further approvals that may be necessary from
the Queensbury Fire Study Committee.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 454, 1990, Introduced by Ronold Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Kurosoka.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously approved a form entitled
"Petition for o Change of Zone" for rezoning matters, and has directed that the some be used
for rezoning requests, and
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has recommended that any and
all applications for rezoning must first go to the Planning Deportment and Planning Board for
recommendations regarding the same, and
WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will
then review the Zoning Applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and
proper,
21
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs
that the following application be submitted to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury
for report and recommendation: WJT Realty - Corner of Hicks Road and County Line Road,
Town of Queensbury, New York.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
DISCUSSION held regarding resolution setting public hearing for noise ordinance. Town Board
agreed to hold for a workshop session to review proposed ordinance.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR
THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION
AND BUILDING CODE AND RELATED LAWS, CODES, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 455, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Stephen Borgos.
WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury a Local Low entitled, "A Local Low Providing for the Administration and
Enforcement of the State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building and Code Related Lows, Codes,
Ordinances and Regulations," and
WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Executive Low and Municipal Home
Rule Law of the State of New York, and
WHEREAS, prior to adoption, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing on said proposed Local
Law,
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 Rood, Queensbury, Warren County, New
York, at 7:30 p.m. on the 20th day of August, 1990, to consider said proposed Local Law and
to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the some and 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 a notice concerning the proposed Local Law in the manner provided by low.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY HOWARD
GRUNDBORG IS UNSAFE - TAX MAP NO. 147--1-47.2
RESOLUTION NO. 456, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Kurosako.
-- WHEREAS, Mr. Whitney Russell, Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Queensbury, has
advised that he has investigated and inspected certain property identified as the Grundborg
property, Town of Queensbury, and bearing tax map no. 147-1-47.2 and has made findings as
more specifically set forth in a memorandum dated September 27, 1989, and an updated
memorandum dated July 16, 1990, copies of which are presented to this meeting, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Whitney Russell advises the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that, in
his opinion, the property and materials situated thereon are dangerous and unsafe to the general
22
public and has asked the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to provide for the .removal
of said materials, or burial of the materials to meet New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation regulations, and general c lean-up of the property, and
WHEREAS, photographs have also been presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Law Number 3, 1983 the Town Board may, by resolution, determine
whether, in its opinion, that the property and materials ore unsafe and dangerous and thereafter
order its removal or burial, and
WHEREAS, said Local Low Number 3, 1983 provides that notice be served upon the owner or
other certain persons interested in said property,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that upon reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury is of the opinion that the property and materials thereon beoring
tax mop number 147-1-47.2 appear to be:
1. presently unsafe and dangerous;
2. potentially on object of attraction and danger to minors; and
3. unfit for the purposes for which it may be lawfully used, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOL VED, that a notice be served upon the owner(s) of said property, said notice providing:
1. a description of the premises,
2. a statement of particulars in which said property and materials thereon appear to
be unsafe and dangerous, as set forth in Mr. Russell's letters,
3. that the materials be removed or buried on site to meet New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation regulations, within 60 days of receipt of this notice,
unless good cause is shown by the property owner or other interested persons whereupon
the time sholl be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
4. that removal or burial of said materials must be commenced in 30 days of receipt
of this notice, unless good cause is shown by the property owner whereupon the time
shall be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
5. that a hearing before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in relotion to the
dangerous or unsafe condition of the property sholl be held on August 20th, 1990,
at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, or not less than 5 days from the
date of service of this said notice, whichever date is later
6. in the event that there is neglect or refusal to comply with the order of this Board
to remove or bury the materials on said property, the Town Board is authorized to
provide for its removal or burial and to assess all expenses thereof against the real
property on which it is located, and to institute special proceedings to collect the
cost of removal or burial, including legal expenses, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that service of the notice provided for herein sholl be in accordance with the
provisions of Local Law No. ,3, 1983.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY HOWARD
TOOMEY IS UNSAFE - TAX MAP NO. 54-3-20
RESOLUTION NO. 457, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Kurosoko.
WHEREAS, Mr. Bert Martin, Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Queensbury, has advised
that he has investigated and inspected certain property identified as Sunnyside Pavilion, Town
of Queensbury, and bearing tax map no. 54-3-20 and has made findings as more specifically
set forth in a memorandum dated October 25, 1988, a copy of which is presented to this meeting,
23
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Bert Martin advises the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury that, in his
opinion, the property and structures situated thereon are dangerous and unsafe to the general
public and has asked the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to provide for the demolition
and removal of said structures and general clean-up of the property or to consider fencing in
the entire area, and
WHEREAS, photographs have also been presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Law Number 3, 1983 the Town Board may, by resolution, determine
whether, in its opinion, that the structures ore unsafe and dangerous and thereafter order their
repair or demolition and removal, and
WHEREAS, said Local Law Number 3, 1983 provides that notice be served upon the owner or
other certain persons interested in said property,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that upon reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury is of the opinion that the property and structures thereon bearing
tax mop number 54-3-20 appear to be:
1. presently unsafe and dangerous;
2. potentially on object of attraction and danger to minors;
3. unfit for the purposes for which it may be lawfully used, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOL VED, that a notice be served upon the owner(s) of said property, said notice providing:
1. a description of the premises;
2. a statement of particulars in which said property and structures thereon appear to
be unsafe and dangerous, as set forth in Mr. Martin's letter,
3. that the structures, burnt trees, and general debris and other property with exception
of concrete dock and podding should be demolished and removed within 60 days of
receipt of this notice, unless good cause is shown by the property owner or other
interested persons whereupon the time shall be extended by the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury,
4. that demolition and removal of said structures must be commenced in 30 days of
receipt of this notice, unless good cause is shown by property owner whereupon the
time shall be extended by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury,
5. that a hearing before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, in relation to the
dangerous or unsafe condition of the property shall be held on August 20th, 1990 at
7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, or not less than 5 days from the dote
of service of this said notice, whichever date is later,
6. in the event that there is neglect or refusal to comply with the order of this Board
to demolish and remove the structures and other property located on said property,
the Town Board is authorized to provide for its demolition and removal and to assess
a// expenses thereof against the real property on which it is located, and to institute
special proceedings to collect the cost of demolition, including legal expenses, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that service of the notice provided for herein shall be in accordance with the
provisions of Local Low No. 3 of 1983.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCE
RESOLUTION NO. 458, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenzo.
24
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes Mr. Harold
Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation to attend the Annual Parks and Recreation Conference
being held in Phoenix, Arizona on October 11th through the 15th, 1990.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 459, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monohon who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
RESOL VED, to transfer as follows:
$10,000.00 From A235 9950919 To A035 1110201.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE AUTHORIZATION AND TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 460, 1990, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby increases the Authorization to the State Police Satellite
Office to $350,000.00, and
BE IT FURTHER
4
RESOLVED, that $40,000.00 be transferred from surplus to cover the outstanding obligations
on the State Police Satellite Office.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF A CERTAIN PENDING ARTICLE 7 TAX
ASSESSMENT REVIEW CASE
RESOLUTION NO. 461, 1990, Introduced by Marilyn Potenzo who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Kurosoko.
WHEREAS, a certain Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Review Case has been commenced
against the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the tax assessment review case with the legal counsel
for the Town of Queensbury, such counsel having made a recommendation to the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the following case be settled with respect to the 1989-90 tax assessment roll_
as indicated and as follows:
9-1-27 - Lois Binley - to be assessed at:
1989-90 - $441,800.00.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
25
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None „
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPERVISOR BORGOS spoke to the Board regarding the Loke George Storm Water Management
Regulations, noting that the Supervisors of the Town's of Warren County met with representatives
of the Lake George Park Commission, stating that they could not support what was proposed.
We left that meeting with on agreement that the new regulations would soy that, I believe there
ore 4 Towns, would be exempt from those regulations with no annual fees and no annual
inspections. Some time after, about 1 weeks, the new draft for the regulations come out which
- did not state the agreement. More phone calls were mode and as of a week ago, I received
a phone call from the principal of o legal firm handling this, to reassure me that there hod been
on error, they do fully intend to put in the provision exempting those Towns in Warren County
that have adopted their own rules and regulations, which we're certainly included in that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would like to see that in writing, I think we need to protect ourselves.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Agreed to make a phone col/ tomorrow and see if we hove some draft
legislation now to tell us if we have to take further action.
BID OPENING - BUILDING & GROUNDS
ONE TON DUMP TRUCK
DeNooyer Chevrolet 1990 Chevy 1 Ton $22,375.00
Wolfe Rood Non-Collusive without trade in
Albany, NY 3 weeks delivery
Moltbie Chevrolet 1990 Chevy 1 Ton $21,569.00
Route 9 Non-Collusive without trade in
Lake George, NY 30 days delivery $18,969.00
with trade in
Orange Motors Option # 7 $22,493.00
Central Avenue 1990 Ford 350 without trade in
A(bony, N Y Non-Collusive $20,993.00
�. 45-60 days delivery with trade in
Option #2 $23,451.40
1990 Ford 350 without trade in
7-14 days delivery $21,951.40
with trade in
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR DUMP TRUCK
RESOLUTION NO. 462, 1990, Introduced by George Kurosoko who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for a 1990 or newer dump truck, pursuant to Town of Queensbury Building &
Grounds Deportment Specifications, and
WHEREAS, the firm of Maltbie's Chevrolet, Inc., has submitted the lowest bid for the dump
truck, said truck being a 1990 Chevrolet One Ton Dump Truck, a copy of their bid being presented
to this meeting, and
WHEREAS, Peter Broult, Building & Grounds Superintendent, has recommended that the bid
be awarded to the aforesaid bidder,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby
awards the bid for the said dump truck to Moltbie's Chevrolet, Inc., and that said dump truck
be paid for from the Vehicles Account No. : A 145 1620 202.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosoko, Mrs. Potenzo, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
26
Noes: None
Absent: None
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 463, 1990, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract August 6th, 1990, numbering 90-3514
thru 90-3757 and totaling $339,098.52 be and hereby is approved.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos v
Noes: None
Absent: None
ATTORNEY DUSEK spoke to the Town Board updating the progress of General Code Publishers.
Town Board agreed that the Town Attorney could forward to General Code Publishers his notes
and recommendations regarding Code Publishers submitted comments, in which they will put
together a volume, one the Board can still revise but at an additional charge.
RESOL UTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 464, 1990, Introduced by George Kurosako who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby move into Executive Session
to discuss Personnel Matters.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 1990, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosako, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: None
No further action was taken.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK