Loading...
2008-03-03 MTG #9REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 1 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG #9 MARCH 3, 2008 RES. # 164-170 7:02PM L.L. #3 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICIALS SENIOR PLANNER- STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL- MARK SCHACHNER WASTEWATER DIRECTOR- MIKE SHAW PRESS POST STAR TV8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER SUPERVISOR STEC OPENED MEETING 1.0HEARINGS CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT SUPERVISOR STEC- Opened hearing and asked if any Board Members have any questions? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- How long of a time line do they have? SUPERVISOR STEC- This would be a one year extension COUNCILMAN MONTESI- How many one years do you get? SUPERVISOR STEC- It is indefinite. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Is there a reason for not wanting to hook up? COUNCILMAN BREWER- The paperwork that we got said that they anticipated redoing the store next year. SUPERVISOR STEC- It is a convenience thing to redo some construction next year. Please come up sir. The application says that you anticipated construction in the spring. MELVIN ROOFIN, PROJECT MANAGER FOR CUMBERLAND FARMS- Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC- Closed the hearing. RESOLUTION APPROVING CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136 – SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 2 RESOLUTION NO.: 164, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Cumberland Farms, Inc., (Applicant) applied to the Town Board for a § second variance/waiver from 136-44 to connect the Cumberland Farms Convenience Store property located on Route 9 and Kendrick Road to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as the Applicant states that it is looking to remodel the building in the spring of 2008 and the property’s current septic system is functioning as more fully set forth in the application presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office mailed a Notice of Hearing to the Applicant and the Town Board duly conducted a hearing concerning the variance/waiver request on rd Monday, March 3, 2008, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a) due to the nature of the variance/waiver request, the Queensbury Town Board determines that the temporary granting of the variance/waiver would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 and/or adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and b) the Town Board finds that the granting of the variance/waiver is reasonable and would alleviate unnecessary hardship on the Applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves Cumberland Farms, Inc. (Applicant)’s application for a variance/waiver from Queensbury Town Code § Chapter 136, 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” and hereby grants the Applicant a rd one-year extension of time or until March 3, 2009 in which to connect its properties REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 3 located at Route 9 and Kendrick Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.13-1-69) to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, provided that if there is any change in property use, increase in septic use or additional bathroom facilities added, then such variance shall immediately terminate unless the Queensbury Town Board review and approves a new application for a variance/waiver, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Applicant shall pay all charges due as if its property was connected to the Route 9 Sewer District, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Town Budget Officer to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of March, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None 2.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR RICHARD LINKE- ? Queensbury needs and Ethics Board ? Spoke regarding zoning laws pertaining to James A Coon, Government Technical Series. The Court of Appeals pointed out no administrative body may destroy the general scheme of a zoning law. MARIE ACKERBAUER- ? Spoke to the Town Board regarding the recent apprehension of her dog and her dissatisfaction with the care received at the contracted animal hospital. She requested that the Board look into it. PLINEY TUCKER- ? Questioned resolution 3.4- resolution authorizing establishment of two public hearing dates for obtaining citizen input for 2008 application to New York State Office for Small Cities. Supervisor Stec explained that it is part of the Town’s requirements for a community development block grant program. We are required to take a minimum of two public hearing dates for these grants. It is a legal requirement for the grant. JOAN ROBERTSON- ? Spoke regarding Resolution 3.1- Zoning. She is opposed to relaxing regulations limiting the size of parking lots. She is concerned about the amount of blacktop because it reduces permeability and contributes to excessive storm water run-off. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 4 She is also concerned about the wetlands. She does not feel that this should be done. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ? Agrees with Ms. Robertson. Part of our problem is the professional office thing. We try and put commercial offices in with professional offices and they don’t fit. Has suggested a potential definition for commercial office which needs to be placed into the Town zoning code. KATHLEEN SONNABEND- ? Three weeks ago the question was raised regarding when the new zoning code would be implemented. Questioned Supervisor Stec as to whether there has been any progress? SUPERVISOR STEC- One of the upcoming workshops is going to be dedicated to that subject. It is likely to take two months to make the changes that they are going to want to do and the approval process is going to take a minimum of another two months. We are looking at July. MS. SONNABEND- Suggests that the zoning code is where we need to address these issues. Agrees with Councilman Strough, we need to make appropriate decisions based upon the uses. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Don’t you feel we can achieve that with the Planning Board? We have a very capable Planning Board. MS. SONNABEND- The Planning Board gets politicized and the zoning code is in place to help protect the community and give guidance to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I think the Planning Board does a pretty good job of protecting the community. MS. SONNABEND- We need to have guidelines in place that make sense. SUPERVISOR STEC- I did point out that no other town has a maximum. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We have a great Planning Board. Why didn’t we give this amendment to our zoning to the Planning Board for review and recommendation like we have everything else? SUPERVSIOR STEC- John, you know as well as everyone else on this Board that this parking issue was at PORC which you sat on for two years and came back to the Town Board that they were unable to make a recommendation. PORC is comprised of Planning and Zoning Board Members. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We did make a recommendation. BETTY MONAHAN- ? Spoke regarding resolution 3.1. There is no doubt that those regulations need tweaking. We need to fix some problems before we do some of this other stuff. The land areas left to be developed are some of the most sensitive and they are being affected by the cumulative impacts. They need to have close scrutiny. DAVE O’BRIEN- ? Questioned Councilman Montesi about something he said three weeks ago regarding zoning changes. Wouldn’t it be wiser to make this sort of decision after the new Board Members have had time to get themselves acclimated? MARK HOFFMAN- ? Spoke to the parking/zoning amendment but not in relation to the Gurney Lane project. Concerned that this is just not a good planning issue in general. One, two REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 5 or three cases of large parking lots isn’t going to result in an environmental disaster. But if you have an entire street of building after building has a massive sea of pavement around it you start seeing these cumulative impacts on the aesthetics on the environment. Unfortunately, developers and business people even if they don’t need the parking, if it is available to them and they are not restricted they are going to take it. The cost of putting some extra parking spaces is miniscule compared with the overall cost of their project. But it does have adverse impacts on the Town in general. This is the type of issue that needs to be tweaked, but it should be tweaked on the context of the comprehensive planning process. DOUG AUER- ? Condolences to the couple who lost their pet. ? Concerned with what he feels is lack of leadership in this Town. ? Spoke regarding resolution 3.1. This issue of parking has been a problem for some time. The law was on the books and you knew there was a problem with it. Why wasn’t Mr. Schermerhorn notified of this? SKIP STRANAHAN- ? Directed a question to Councilman Montesi about resolution 45, 1987 regarding parking around Rush Pond. Councilman Montesi reviewed for Mr. Stranahan the development around that area in 1987. ? I think this parking lot law is premature and it should be brought to a meeting of the Planning Board or somebody else, if it needs an expansion that’s the way we should pursue with it. SAM BUTTO- ? Spoke on resolution 3.1. By creating this amendment is appears to accommodate certain developers and development proposals. It is even at the overwhelming opposition of the public. It is contrary to good community planning and it certainly contrary to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that you have all developed. I don’t understand why we are here talking about this now. It appears to me that there are other alternatives, which are more reasonable and should be considered. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ? Here is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and I have made the many references in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that shows that large parking lots should be discouraged, specifically says it on page 39. I just want to add while we bring up the topic, New York State town law article 16 section 272A paragraph 11 effective adoption of the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan. All Town Land use regulations must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan adopted pursuant to this section. KATHLEEN FRANKLIN- ? Spoke regarding an article in the Post Star in 2006 about a moratorium. I think it is absolutely foolish to go piece by piece with regards to the zoning amendment. If we get the plan together and make sure the zoning is in sync with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and then go ahead with these things there is going to be a lot less trouble for everybody. GAIL BUTTO- ? All the activity in recent months regarding the application by Mr. Schermerhorn for a parking variance has brought to the attention of the public a simple and evident truth. It is the responsibility of the Queensbury Town Board to facilitate and expedite the completion of the Town Code. Without this document as a formal instrument for assessment and guidance no one has a reference point. None of our Boards can be expected to evaluate properly any project proposal without a completed code. Those wishing to develop their properties may misinterpret the zoning laws. The intention of the code is to protect all from inappropriate development while encouraging responsible growth. It is a most REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 6 important document that should not be tampered with before careful consideration has been made to how each change impact the entire plan. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Suppose Mr. Schermerhorn proposed ten ten thousand square foot buildings on seventeen acres. That is reasonable, let’s say it takes three or four acres of roadway and he has to have some space for sedimentation ponds. But he is going to build ten residential looking buildings, ten thousand square foot each on that seventeen acres. Do you know what that would equate to? Three hundred cars easily. What I am saying is that acceptable or not acceptable to the neighborhood. MRS. BUTTO- If it is professional offices that provides services to the neighborhood and residential in size or square with people who come and go not people who arrive at eight and leave at five and cause safety issues. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- There is an impact on that seventeen acres with residential looking offices. MRS. BUTTO- But that is shared parking for people who arrive, stay for an hour for their appointment and then leave. It’s not five hundred and thirty seven cars sitting there all day and then leaving at the same time. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- But it may be three hundred cars coming and going all day. MRS. BUTTO- But that’s not a burst that’s a flow and probably much safer in nature to all the people in for emergency services, right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- So the neighborhood wouldn’t have a problem with something like that? MRS. BUTTO- We have said before that if that piece of property is to be developed in that manner we would welcome that over this big beast monolithic structure. JOHN SALVADOR- ? With regards to the public hearing on the parking ordinance change, I mentioned the fact that you are faced with unintended consequences if you adopt this. You are going to have a parade of height variances. The land will no longer be used for building foot print it will be used for parking and the applicants will go up. Gave examples of a building in the Village of Lake George that received a height variance through the APA. ? Spoke regarding the last Town Board Meeting on January 25th where Councilman Metivier gave a report on the progress being made at Takundewide. Questioned whether he was aware that the application before the Planning Board is contingent upon the applicant getting a speedes permit which is contingent upon this Town forming a transportation corporation. Reviewed the Transportation Corporation Law. He feels that the project should go no where JOHN DAVIS- ? Asked Councilman Montesi if he plans to recuse himself from voting on resolution 3.1. He is not sure of the source of all the information but there is a lot of talk around Town about Councilman Montesi’s connection with North Country Janitorial where he was previously employed and his son who is now operating the business. The talk is that there is some connection with Mr. Schermerhorn and his apartments. Councilman Montesi replied that he has been retired from that business for four years and the only connection that he can think of between North Country Janitorial and Schermerhorn would probably be the Ridge Street Building. They maintained that for twenty years when it was Kamyr. ? Asked Councilman Metivier if he plans to recuse himself from voting on resolution 3.1 as well. It has also been said that with Councilman Metivier’s connection with Frontgate Real Estate where he is an agent as well as his mother and Mr. Schermerhorn’s mother-in- law. Councilman Montesi said that he has seen Mr. Schermerhorn’s mother-in-law maybe once in the last REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 7 three years. Mr. Davis stated that if this is all fact then Frontgate Real Estate would tend to gain as a result of a positive vote on this issue. MARYLEE GOSSELIN- ? Why does Mr. Schermerhorn’s name keep coming up with regards to resolution 3.1 when everyone keeps saying that this has nothing to do with him? ? If two of the Board Members are new and they need to get familiarized with thing what is the urgency of voting on resolution 3.1? 3.0RESOLUTIONS DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE COMPLETION OF SEQRA: COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Stu, before we begin with SEQRA. Type 1 actions, 617.4 section B, subsection 2, adoption of changes and allowable uses within any zoning districts affecting twenty five more acres should be a type 1 action. Also, in the reading material it says the first step in a SEQRA review is to take a hard look at the possible impacts of an agency action and make a determination where one or more adverse impacts may result. Take a hard look. When we have amended the zoning before we have always done a long form. Even in the part 1 of the short form and god knows why we decided to go with the short form maybe just to make it quick and easy. SUPERVISOR STEC- Like it has been COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, for some reason it has been on the fast track. Anyway, let me stay with SEQRA. In part 1 it says that this affects twenty six thousand one hundred twenty four point eight acres, we are seventy two square miles and you could make the argument that it affects the whole town which is forty six thousand eighty acres. In any event… COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Don’t we exclude… COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If you look down below in number nine Ron, you will see what we did not exclude okay. Go ahead, take a look. In any event, even twenty six thousand one hundred and twenty four point eight acres exceeds the threshold defined in type 1. So, therefore we’re really talking at a minimum of if you want to give us a hard look and you want to do this correctly you should be doing this long form EAF and not the short form. Precedent? We’ve done it with all the others, why all of the sudden do we take a short form. Don’t you want to give us a hard look to see what kind of impacts this is going to have on our Town? I think the Town Board Members want to maybe with the exception of one. But, I think we should do the long form and to do the short form I don’t think is appropriate. Also, because the Warren County Planning Board was asked to have a special hearing, which three out of five voted against this proposal by the way, but let’s get back to SEQRA. It seems that and if you read the Chronicle it seems that this is being done for certain projects that are before the Town now. If that is the case, not to include a review of those projects along with this could be deemed segmentation, could be deemed segmentation; especially the clause about preexisting, that seems to be a catch too. There are arrows pointing in the direction that these are trying to accommodate preexisting applications. I believe this is my opinion that those preexisting applications should be taken into consideration when doing the SEQRA analysis. My main point is I think we should be doing a long form and I think there is substance and there is precedent to that in this Board. SUPERVISOR STEC- Mark, do you care to offer and opinion on whether or not this short form is or is not appropriate for this. MR. SCHACHNER- Sure, I think that I have a fair amount of knowledge about the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and its regulations. The provision of the SEQRA regulations that Councilman Strough was referring to reads and I believe you read it correctly, I’m just repeating it, the adoption of changes in the allowable uses REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 8 within any zoning district effecting twenty five or more acres of the district. My understanding of the proposed zoning amendment is that it would not change what are or are not the allowable uses in any zoning district. Allowable uses are commercial use, residential use, list of uses when there are zoning districts, etc, etc. We have schedules of allowable uses, as far as I know the proposed amendment relates only to the number of parking spaces that might be allowed and I believe it is town wide other than within the Adirondack Park. I don’t see how it changes “what are the allowable uses”? As a result, I’m not aware of any requirement that this be treated as a SEQRA type 1 action. The significance of whether this needs to be treated as a SEQRA type 1 action or not is simply that if it was a type 1 action then there is authority that indicates that a long form might be required. If it is not a type 1 action and I apologize for using these terms of law and art but that is what we are talking about here. If it is not a SEQRA type 1 action it is what’s called a SEQRA unlisted action, meaning it is neither a type 1 action or a type 2 action and with an unlisted action it is permissible to use the short environmental assessment form. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It’s permissible. However, let me ask you a question as our Counsel, given the tenor of the community and given the far reaching and potential significant impacts that this zoning changing could propose would you recommend a long form as opposed to a short form in this particular instance, especially given that we’ve done that before with the same kind of situation that have been preceded on this Town Board? MR. SCHACHNER- I have no recommendation in that regard, Councilman Strough. There are a lot of assumptions in that question that I may or may not agree with but they don’t raise legal with issues. The legal issue is whether this is a SEQRA type 1 action or a SEQRA unlisted action, as far as I know unless I’m missing something, it is a SEQRA unlisted action and therefore, and you probably know I chose my words fairly carefully, therefore it is permissible for the SEQRA agency, which is in this case is the Town Board to utilize a short environmental assessment form. I use the word permissible because that’s not to suggest that if a majority of the Board wanted to use the long form you couldn’t do that, you could do that but it’s not required. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Alright. It doesn’t really answer the question but let me ask the question a little bit differently. If you wanted this Board to take the safest approach… SUPERVISOR STEC- Then we wouldn’t be doing this, we would do nothing. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Against legal would you suggest a short form or long form? MR. SCHACHNER- My recommendation is to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Which form makes you take a harder look at the change you are proposing. MR. SCHACHNER- Generically or in this case? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Generically MR. SCHACHNER- Generically, generally speaking COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The long form or the short form? MR. SCHACHNER- Generally speaking the long environmental assessment form would facilitate a more detailed review of a proposed action than short environmental assessment form. But I’m not making that recommendation. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, but you answered my question. It would force you to take a more thorough, in depth look at what you are trying to do here. Correct? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 9 MR. SCHACHNER- No, that is not, no. I don’t believe that. That is not what I said. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- What did you just say? MR. SCHACHNER- I said that generally speaking the long environmental assessment form facilitates a more detailed review of a proposed action COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Detail or more in depth MR. SCHACHNER- Mr. Strough, all do respect, let’s not interrupt one another okay. What I was saying was, generally speaking the long environmental assessment form facilitates a more detailed review of a proposed action then the short environmental assessment form. Zoning amendments are notoriously difficult to review under either form because the forms don’t really lend themselves very successfully to review of zoning amendments. So the prevailing wisdom in this state is that really neither form lends itself particularly well to detailed review of zoning amendments because the forms are really much more focused on project specific information like the size of a building, the amount of air emissions from a proposed factory or what have you. So the prevailing wisdom is actually that neither form lends itself particularly well to taking the hard look that SEQRA requires. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But, I’ll go with what you said; I’ll even use the word detailed. The long form would give you a more detailed look at what you are trying to do. Okay, I’ll go with that. I think that is the safest route that we should go. How about the precedent; that is what we have always used in the past and this is a break from precedent. SUPERVISOR STEC- I’m going to take exception to precedent John because… COUNCILMAN STROUGH- When we did professional office we did the long form COUNCILMAN BREWER- We changed the zone then though COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, we amended the zone SUPERVISOR STEC- We broke from precedent last two years on several occasions COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We didn’t for professional office, we used the long form SUPERVISOR STEC- We did for professional office no but as far as including or not including current applications we included current applications to take property rights away two years ago. So, we’ve broken, that Board found that it was in the Town’s interest to break from that precedent. That’s a fact. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, what we did was we used the long form. We should use the long form now. I don’t know why we went to the short form. It seems like maybe you don’t want to take a hard look at this. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- John, when we took that professional office, when you did the professional office two years ago or three years ago somehow even with all the detail you missed a point that commercial buildings were included in that. How did that happen? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We brought it up and as a matter of fact COUNCILMAN MONTESI- But you passed it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Ron, you know what, here is the language that went along with that, at the time of the passing I was assured by other members of the Board that we would take a hard look at the proposal that I brought forward, which I don’t know if you’ve seen that or not. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 10 COUNCILMAN MONTESI- What passed was professional office buildings and it had no information in there that said you were looking for residential type of buildings. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes it did. What I am trying to tell you is we recognized the problem Ron; we never got around to fixing it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- So, it isn’t fixed. But it wasn’t fixed with a SEQRA 1 detailed. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It isn’t fixed. Well, you know what, Part B isn’t fixed, the zoning isn’t fixed, the cable TV franchise isn’t fixed, the ethics committee isn’t fixed. I could keep on going about all the things that aren’t done. SUPERVISOR STEC- What happened to the ethics committee? Why did they all quit? They all quit. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, because we put a clause in there saying that you should not be on a political committee and also be on the ethics committee and also be on the ethics’ committee. Is that why they quit? SUPERVISOR STEC- They weren’t all on committees. What we did was we went through all the resumes and found a disqualifier for all of them. We offended all five of those good people and they all quit. Because they gave you an answer that you didn’t like. That’s the fact. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I don’t see anybody that disagrees with me that it is not a good idea to have people who are on political committees and be on the ethics board. SUPERVISOR STEC- That you shouldn’t negotiate a contract with yourself? You should sit on this Board and another board? That’s what they ruled on John COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Can I talk without you interrupting me? SUPERVISOR STEC- Go ahead John. You have been talking for twenty minutes though. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I’m just trying to catch up with you. The ethics committee is not the discussion here but in any event my point is… SUPERVISOR STEC- There is cable TV John COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, the list of things not getting done in this Town is that long. SUPERVISOR STEC- And that’s because of what you just spent fifteen minutes saying that we COUNCILMAN STROUGH- All of the sudden we’ve got to get this done in present all the rest of that stuff has taken a back seat, now we have got to this. SUPERVISOR STEC-This little paragraph in the Zoning Code, John at this pace will take us ten years to go through the whole Zoning Code. I want to know right now is every paragraph in the Zoning Code going to be like this with you. That is what I am curious about. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I helped write the Zoning Code. SUPERVISOR STEC-I have been working with this Code for nine years myself, now John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I did not see you on any of the committees helping to write it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 11 SUPERVISOR STEC-I was on the Town Board that passed every change in the last nine years. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You were on the Town Board I did not see you doing anything COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let’s stop SUPERVISOR STEC- Go ahead and walk us through short form please Stu PART II IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY) A.DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.4? IF YES, COORDINATE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND USE THE NO FULL EAF. B.WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.6? IF NO, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER INVOLVED NO AGENCY. ANY C.COULD ACTION RESULT IN ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING (ANSWERS MAY BE HANDWRITTEN, IF NO LEGIBLE) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal. Potential for erosion, NO drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural NO resources or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or NO threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly. C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in NO use or intensity of use of land, or other natural resources? Explain briefly. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by NO the proposed action? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? NO Explain briefly. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? NO Explain briefly. D.WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY NO E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? IF YES, EXPLAIN YES BRIEFLY. MR. SCHACHNER- I myself, and maybe I missed voices, but I heard mostly three voices on each of those and while a majority of the three were answering in the no, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 12 actually it has to be a majority of the entire Board that carries these decisions. So, I’m not suggesting that we need to do them over again but I think we need to know whether Councilman Montesi and Metivier are on the no or on the yes side of these questions. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- No COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I was on the no MR. SCHACHNER- Okay, so that being the case then I think that all four questions would be answered by clearly a majority of the Board in the negative. I’m not sure on the last question. The last question is the only one that doesn’t really require a judgment call on potential environmental impacts it really more an empirical observation of whether there is public controversy or not regardless of the foundation of the public controversy. SUPERVISOR STEC- In that case, there is controversy. There are obviously several people here. MR. SCHACHNER- Correct. So, I am suggesting that you might want to think about that answer to that question because again that does not call for the Town Board to make a judgment as to the validity of the controversy or the justification or anything else. It is merely and empirical observation of whether there is controversy of a potential environmental impact. SUPERVISOR STEC- There is clearly controversy. COUNCILMAN BREWER- But clearly doesn’t that controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts MR. SCHACHNER- Right, but what I’m saying is in my opinion as Counsel, I’m hearing controversy related to potential environmental impacts regardless of the validity or lack of validity. Of course, I take no opinion on that. I’m hearing controversy so I’m concerned about the Boards answer to that question. SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, so let’s say yes. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2008 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO REVISE PARKING REQUIREMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 165, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to provide greater flexibility to property owners and project sponsors in providing additional off-street parking when needed for specific projects without increasing the requirements for all projects, and WHEREAS, the Town Board therefore wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 3 of 2008 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 “Zoning,” which would revise §179-4-040-(B)(10) to allow a property owner or project sponsor to provide, for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 13 property outside of the Adirondack Park, up to 100% more parking than required by the Town Zoning Law if approved by the Town Planning Board, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency and accepts lead agency status for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an Unlisted Action in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, and th WHEREAS, on or about February 4, 2008 the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposed Local Law and took no formal action of recommendation, and WHEREAS, the Adirondack Park Agency has advised that the proposed Local Law does not involve provisions of the Adirondack Park Agency Act or the Agency-approved Local Land Use Program and therefore no further review by the Agency is necessary, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, February 11, 2008 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Short Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the legislative amendment will not have any significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Short Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 14 RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a SEQRA Negative Declaration or determination that no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the SEQRA regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 3 of 2008 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: Mr. Strough ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Metivier LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2008 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND ZONING LAW TO REVISE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BE IT ENACTED BY THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PURPOSE; AUTHORITY – The purpose of this Local Law is to provide greater flexibility to property owners and project sponsors in providing additional off-street parking when needed for particular projects without increasing the requirements for all projects. This Local Law is adopted pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law Section 10. SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS – Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,”, is amended as follows: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 15 A. Section 179-4-040(B)(10) is revised to read as follows: “If approved by the Planning Board, a property owner or project sponsor may provide, for property outside of the Adirondack Park, up to one-hundred percent (100%) more parking than the minimum number of parking spaces required by Table 5. For property within the Adirondack Park, a property owner or project sponsor may provide up to twenty percent (20%) more parking than required by Table 5, if approved by the Planning Board. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY – The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. SECTION 4. REPEALER – All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. SECTION 5. PENDING APPLICATIONS – Any application pending prior to the date of the Public Hearing on this Local Law but not yet approvedshall be subject to the new provisions established by this Local Law. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE – This Local Law shall be filed in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law Section 27 and shall take effect as provided by law. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OFMEADOWBROOK ROAD AREA WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT FUND NO: 160 RESOLUTION NO.: 166, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No.: 309,2006, the Queensbury Town Board established the Meadowbrook Road Area Water Main Replacement Capital Project Fund #160, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has advised that the project is complete, and Whereas, the Town’s accounting records show that there is approximately $141,017.36 remaining in Capital Project Fund #160, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 16 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to close this Capital Project Fund and transfer the Fund’s remaining fund balance to Water Capital Reserve Fund #065, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to close the Meadowbrook Road Area Water Main Replacement Capital Project Fund #160 and transfer the Fund’s remaining balance to Water Capital Reserve Fund #065, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE NEW YORK STATE PROPERTY TAXPAYERS PROTECTION ACT RESOLUTION NO.: 167, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the tremendously high property tax burden on New York families and businesses is the number one issue facing our community today and the sheer cost of living in New York has forced many residents and businesses to leave, thus slowing the economic engine of the State, and WHEREAS, young people are finding it difficult to purchase homes, seniors are struggling to maintain their homes and businesses are facing immense challenges to create and retain jobs, and WHEREAS, New Yorkers face the highest property taxes in the nation and when measured as a percentage of home value, nine of the top 10 property tax rates in the entire REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 17 country belong to counties in New York, and the State must act now to thwart the detrimental effects that high property taxes are having on local governments, and WHEREAS, Assembly Minority Conference Members have introduced the “New York State Property Taxpayers Protection Act” (Assembly Bill 8775-A) which puts forth new and innovative ideas for property tax reform that limit the amount that school districts can raise annually through local tax levies to four-percent (4%) or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, and WHEREAS, in addition, the Act would relieve municipalities and school districts of unfunded mandates, reduce county Medicaid costs, strengthen financial accountability over school tax dollars, promote local government efficiency and encourage local option insurance pooling, and WHEREAS, the “New York State Property Taxpayers Protection Act” will help fix New York’s broken property tax system by providing homeowners, businesses and municipalities significant and lasting relief from the crushing burden of skyrocketing property taxes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby pauses in its deliberations to acknowledge New York State’s property tax crisis and urge the immediate passage and chaptering of the “New York State Property Taxpayers Protection Act,” which will help local governments reinvigorate New York’s economy by providing incentives for people and businesses to move and stay here, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor’s Office to forward certified copies of this Resolution to the New York State Governor, the Temporary President of the New York State Senate, the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and each member of the New York State Legislature. Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None *DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 18 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Very supportive of this bill. Would like to see that this also apply to the State, County and local governments; not just the schools. SUPERVISOR STEC- We will pass this resolution and I will work on another resolution to include exactly that. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF TWO PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR OBTAINING CITIZEN INPUT FOR 2008 APPLICATION TO NEW YORK STATE OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES RESOLUTION NO.: 168, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the New York State Small Cities Office is accepting applications from eligible communities to compete for funds available through the New York State Administered Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has reviewed its housing and community development problems and needs, and WHEREAS, the Town will hold two public hearings to obtain citizens’ views and develop a proposed program and application for funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold two public hearings at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on thth Monday, March 17, 2008 and Monday, April 7, 2008, to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning the Town’s application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the New York State Administered Small Cities Program, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post Notices of Public Hearings a minimum of ten (10) days prior to each scheduled public hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 19 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk and/or Senior Planner to sign any documentation and take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of March, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – RD WARRANT OF MARCH 3, 2008 RESOLUTION NO.: 169, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of February 28, 2008 and a payment date of th March 4, 2008, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of February 28, 2008 and payment date of March 4, 2008 totaling $292,979.47, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-03-2008 MTG #9 20 4.0CORRESPONDENCE NONE 5.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER- ? Met with a representative from AT&T on Friday morning. They have a State program that could potentially save us an extra twenty percent off of what their rates are. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ? Spoke regarding Queensbury Senior Citizens and highlighted upcoming activities. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- ? Spoke regarding the clean up of the Luzerne Road PCB site. ? On Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 6:30 PM at the West Glens Falls Fire House there will be a public hearing regarding the easement and eminent domain proceedings along Main Street. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- ? Thanked our Highway Department for their hard work. SUPERVISOR STEC- ? Thanked TV8 and Cool Insurance for the televising/sponsoring of our Town Board Meetings. ? We are looking for people for the Ethics Board. We are looking for people who can be open-minded and preferably not politically active. If there is anyone who is interested please send letter expressing interest personal background addressed to me at 742 Bay Road. ? We looking into better cell phone rates and service the Town, Fire and EMS companies. ? On March 19, 2008 there will be a joint public hearing between the Town and the County at the West Glens Falls Fire House at 6:30 PM. Certified letters went out to all those people who own property in that corridor. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 170, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED: Mr. Ronald Montesi RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 3rd day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully, Darleen Dougher Town Clerk/Town of Queensbury