Loading...
1995-10-02 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1995 7:05 P.M. MTG # 53 RES#508-523 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Executive Director of Community Development Cathy Geoffory, Comptroller Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent Rick Missita, Deputy Highway Superintendent Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater Press: GF Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TURNER Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order ... PUBLIC HEARING - LOCATE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE MOBILE HOME COURT NOTICE SHOWN 7:07 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll open the public hearing for the permit to locate a mobile home outside of a mobile home court for Ms. Kelly Sprague. Anyone here to speak on behalf of Ms. Sprague? ATTORNEY MIKE O'CONNOR-Mr. Supervisor, ladies and gentlemen, I am Mike O'Connor, I am here to speak on behalf of the applicant. We were here before and basically I think the board is looking at this under Section 113-12G2. We've got some information for the board, this is a mobile home replacement. The prior mobile home was destroyed in a storrn. I think that somebody mentioned before, it was moved to another part of the town. We understand, and I have this like second hand information that it was moved with the understanding of Mr. Hatin. The move was temporary and the person who moved it may try to salvage it, may not try to salvage it but that was their intention. We've got a little information that we would submit to the board. One is in the nature of a petition by people as to whether or not they would have any objection to the placement that has been put in place there and the second page is kind of a sketch of the neighborhood and I presume that many of the board members have already been out there to the neighborhood. This is not the introduction of something new to the neighborhood, there are other mobile homes in the immediate area. If you look at that sketch, the one that's marked proposed site is where we're talking about. There's a mobile home directly across the corner, there's a mobile home kitty corner and down the street there are at least three mobile homes. The boxes that have Y's filled out in them are representative of people on the first page who have indicated that they do not have a problem, to quote the petition. This is something that Ms. Sprague made out herself at my suggestion. It's a very simple thing and it says, we do not have a problem with the placement of this trailer. If you take a look at the third page, it's an indication of conditions that Ms. Sprague would be willing to accept as part of the issuance of the permit and basically, maybe to understand those, you have to look at this sketch which was also made by Ms. Sprague. This over here is Feld Street, this over here is Columbia Avenue, the rectangular box on here is the mobile home itself. This is a proposed landscaping plan as they would landscape the mobile home, if they're permitted to put it on there. I mention it at this point because on the conditions or the items that they intend to complete, the first one mentioned is three new porches as shown on there. I think the rest of the list pretty well speaks for itself. They're talking about vinyl skirting, they're talking about a new electric entrance, a new stone driveway, some landscaping the east side of the yard and removing debris from a storrn. Basically what was there was a permitted trailer. We believe that under the Queensbury Ordinance, because the nature in which that trailer was destroyed, we're entitled to replace it. We look upon the replacement as being a betterment. We're trying to avoid, if you will, this becoming an emotionally charged argument or presentation. If you take a look at the list of the people that signed saying they have no objection, some of those are very close in proximity to the trailer itself. We understand and I have not seen the petition that was submitted but there are a number of people that have signed another petition opposing this who are not in great proximity to the site that were talking about. I think the problem that you have here is that there appears to be an objection to having a mobile home on this site and I think that, that is not the issue that's before you. The issue is whether or not this is a fair replacement for what was there. There are a couple of other people here that I know we're going to speak. Mrs. Johnson is here, she has submitted a letter, she is the actual lot owner and I think part of your file is a letter, is a sworn letter of September 7th indicating that she agrees with the placement of the trailer there and is there with her permission. I won't, I'll close from saying anything else. I don't know if the board has any question of Ms. Kelly Sprague that you want answered. Do you want us to wait? COUNCILMAN TURNER-If this was to go through, what's the time frame for all those improvements? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-We would ask that ... Kelly, do you want to come up? Mr. Turner is asking you for a time table on these things right here. Everything on the list would be completed immediately, say within thirty days except for the planting of the trees which would be done in the spring time and maybe pick a date of June 30th for the landscaping. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Okay, thank you. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Any other questions? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Kelly, were you the previous tenant, is that what I understand? MS. KELLY SPRAGUE-No. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You are a new tenant? MS. SPRAGUE-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-How long has there been a mobile home on this site? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Mrs. Johnson, do you want to come up? Do you want to answer that question? MRS. JOHNSON-Okay, about eight years. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that an approved building lot for that area or is there a variance necessary to put a house on it? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-This is a buildable lot providing the setback standards of today can be met. It's a preexisting non-conforming lot and our records are consistent with what Mrs. Johnson just said. We have a use variance that was approved October 16th of 1986 for placement of the home and then in 1987 a building permit was issued in June of 87 and it appears that was occupied in July or August thereafter that same year. That's what all our records indicate, that's all I found on the parcel. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Any other questions from the board? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Marjorie, has that been continuously occupied since the first date? MRS. JOHNSON-Yes, until the storm in July. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, since 1986 there's been an occupant in there? MRS. JOHNSON-yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, any other concerns from the board? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I just have a question. You, were you the occupant of the trailer that was destroyed? MS. SPRAGUE-No. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-You, were not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You did not live in the previous mobile home? MS. SPRAGUE-No. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Who was the person who lived in the mobile home at the time it was destroyed? MRS. JOHNSON-Scott Morgan. It was his sister but he owned it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, she lived in a mobile home that he owned? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Mrs. Johnson, you don't own the trailer, you just lease the property to the trailer owners? MRS. JOHNSON-That's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And Scott Morgan's, is the one that had a mobile home on this since the original date that? MRS. JOHNSON-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else care to speak for the mobile home, in favor of? MS. CINDY RANDALL-My name is Cindy Randall and I live at 18 Holden Avenue and the back of my yard abuts the lot that the trailer is on and I have no objection to the trailer being there as long as it's kept neat. There's been one there ever since I've been there, so it's not any different. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-One other comment that I would make I guess is that, if there was actually a variance given, this is probably before mobile homes were permitted outside of the mobile home parks and that was maybe the reason for the variance. That variance would run with the land. One other comment in partially addressing comments that were maybe made at the last meeting, the Spragues have checked with the operators of two of the larger mobile home parks and this trailer is a, or this mobile home is a mobile home that would be permitted in those parks. It would require an inspection, the same as they do with any other, other then new trailer or mobile home. We did submit some pictures the last time, we have other pictures which will just give you an indication of other structures within the neighborhood. If you want them, we can submit those to you but I presume many of you have been up there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, question. Our ordinance says a mobile home lawfully in existence at the effective date of this article but not located in a mobile home court maybe continued as follows: the owner or occupant shall register such mobile home with the Town Clerk within thirty days of such effective date and I've got to go back and check the date of this ordinance was. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think this ordinance that you're reading from was effective prior to the variance being granted. My guess would be. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This was adopted in 1969. Something isn't right here. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-That would be my suspicion. That was the original mobile home ordinance for the town. I don't think those sections have been changed. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, then I guess I've got a question. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think that language is superseded by the variance and permit that was granted in 1987. Do you have that variance approval with you? I think it's still in effect because I had that question with my initial discussions with Mr. Martin. You seem to have two, you have the zoning which is taken over as an overlay which permits mobile homes in certain neighborhoods including this neighborhood but then you still have this permit process in place. So, you have two layers of regulation. And I don't mean to misstate something that Mr. Dusek would agree or disagree with. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's right, he's right, the variance goes with the land, period. The variance was granted in 1986, it goes with the land. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, you have to read the variance and see what the variance said, it might have been conditioned. COUNCILMAN PULVER-No, Jim did read it, it's for the mobile home. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It indicates approved, meets criteria for use variance and has specified unnecessary hardship due to neighborhood. Also, this wouldn't be detrimental to the ordinance. No reasonable return is possible if a single family residence is built on the property. That's the extent of the approving resolution. COUNCILMAN TURNER-This part here is what she's looking at, a mobile home which was in existence at the effective date of the article, it's not located in a mobile home court. That's grandfathered. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, it's before, that's before 1969 then I would think. COUNCILMAN TURNER-If they were outside, they're grandfathered and if they wanted to build a superior home, a better home, substitute it, then they would have to get a permit. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I raised the question initially whether or not we needed a permit because we were replacing one that had already been there but we thought that this was the more safer way or conservative way of going with the belt and suspenders, we make the application and have you pass on it rather then have people argue that we should have and we didn't. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Mike, I didn't hear when they said these improvements, what date they thought these improvements would be done. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-All improvements can be made within thirty days of the approval except for the landscaping which I arbitrarily said be complete by June 30th next year. COUNCILMAN TURNER-You can take the right of the variance away from them, the variance goes with the land. They have the right to put that mobile home there. COUNCILMAN PULVER-We do have other people though that want to speak, I think. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else care to speak for or against? MS. CAROL BOLEN-Hi, my name is Carol Bolen and I live at 12 1/2 Holden Avenue and I just wanted to, Tammy has more to say then I do but first of all, Mike O'Connor had mentioned that the prior mobile home was destroyed and that wasn't true. That was, it was damaged and it was salvaged and it was sold. And it was moved from that lot within five hundred feet I believe. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, it's set up there now in another lot? MS. BOLEN-It was and I think it's been moved. It was put there after it was damaged. It was damaged by the storm, it wasn't completely destroyed it was moved off the property onto Wayne Mechanic's property. MS. TAMMY HERMANCE-On Wayne Mechanic's property, I mentioned that at the last meeting. MS. BOLEN-It should be on one of your maps and it was salvaged and sold. And I guess there was one other question that I had. I had spoken to Jim Martin, I had come here, I came here a few days ago and I went to the Assessor's Office and I got the record card for the property and there was a question at the time and I believe that I was told that this might have gone through Building and Codes but it didn't go, get town approval. Is that true? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I told her, I thought it was my understanding that, of course I know that's the way we handle them now, is we get the use variance and it also comes to this board for approval and what I indicated to her is I saw the use variance approval but there was no record that this has ever been to the Town Board. But I don't know what the, how it was dealt with at that time. MS. BOLEN-And prior to 1987 that lot, it was vacant, I mean we used to play ball on that lot. There's a house, the existing house, there's a woman who spoke earlier, I don't remember her name and she lives on the corner of Holden and Columbia, I believe she rents from Marjorie Johnson also and that, where the mobile home is now, that's the backyard, that was always the backyard to that house. We knew the LaPlants that lived there before, we grew up with them and it was always vacant prior to 1987 and basically when we went around to get the signatures, alot of people said, well, it was kind of, I don't know if they meant it literally but, the trailer was put in during the middle of the night. You know they kind of blinked it was there and they just didn't think they could do anything about it at the time. And nobody, nobody, everybody that I talked to said that it hadn't gone through town approval and if you see the record cards that we copied. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Carol, where are you located to the proposed site? MS. BOLEN-I'm 12 1/2 Holden and where the trailer, where the other woman who lives, who rents from Marjorie Johnson she's on the corner of Holden and Feld, I'm one house over from Feld and Holden, or Columbia and Holden. So, I'm just across the street one house in between. So, if the trailer is behind her house, I'm one house between that house. I can, if there wasn't a garage there, I can see, actually, I can see around it. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Okay, so you're here. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Yea, she's over here. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-She's looking this way, this is the garage, she's got to be here. MS. BOLEN-One other thing I wanted to mention was that, I didn't think we had to get into talking about Kelly Sprague because I thought the whole issue was, there shouldn't be a trailer there in the first place. It's single family residential, it says it on those town cards, on the record cards and some how it got there without town approval as to my knowledge, I thought there was no town approval and people didn't think they could do anything about it and now, this is just rental property to Marjorie Johnson. I mean, Kelly Sprague has never occupied the property and this is, anyone saying that they have a hardship coming in with the mobile home to this new lot. I mean, anybody could say that. I don't see any hardship on there part and basically the home that was moved on that property in 1987 was a new trailer I believe, it was a 1987 Fairmont. The trailer that's going in is a 1974, I don't know the name of the trailer. MS. HERMANCE-Empire. MS. BOLEN-Yea, it's a 1974 Empire and it definitely looks, it is definitely not an upgrade, anybody could tell that. It's not an upgrade, it definitely looks, it's a much older trailer. There's no foundation and I, and I don't know for sure but I don't know if it would even meet the fire codes that are required now for trailers that go in trailer parks and we're in a, our neighborhood is in a constant change right now, we're all trying to make our homes better. My brother bought a house for fifty thousand dollars or around there and he put twenty thousand into it and that's just one house in between him and the trailer and we redid an apartment for my parents, put alot of money into it and alot of the older homes were knocked down in the area and I feel that we're moving forward and we look to you for help to keep us moving forward and not going back, bring a 1974 trailer on a lot. And it doesn't look right. I mean it doesn't even look, it looks like it was, you know it doesn't look like it belongs there at all for one thing. And one other thing is, in the notice, in her application it says to replace a mobile home that was destroyed by storm and in your bylaws here it says that you really need to state fully your reasons for hardships and why you need to put this here. And I would think the real reason should be, I wrote this down somewhere, it's not a replacement, the original mobile home was not destroyed or damaged and the original mobile home was not owned by Kelly Sprague. The real reason was to place a 1974 mobile home on real property in the Town of Queensbury outside of a licensed mobile home courts. The area is not zoned for mobile homes, it's single family residential and it's not owner occupied. And if you're coming from a different area of town where you live, how can that be a hardship to them? I can see where it might be a hardship to Marjorie Johnson that she may not be able to rent it. But we feel like we're going backwards in a time when we're all trying to make the neighborhood better. MS. HERMANCE-There's many new houses also that have been put up in the area, if you go up farther up Columbia and take a right onto Sunset and Nathan and all them streets, there's all brand new homes that have gone in and Wayne Mechanic also put a new home in up on Columbia. So, there's quite a few new homes. We sunk some money into our house so our's is fairly new, on the inside anyways and we take very good care of our house, we keep the landscaping very nice and we just want to keep the neighborhood looking that way. MS. BOLEN-And also on the, one more thing if I can mention on the resolution to set public hearing that was posted for everyone to see and in that notice two times and I think I gave you a copy of that, or no I didn't give you a copy, she has it. It says that she, Kelly Sprague wants to replace her old mobile home with a new mobile home and that's false, it was not her old mobile home and her old mobile home is older, it's a 74 versus an 87. And number two, to substitute a new mobile home for an existing mobile home, that's false, her mobile home is a 74 Empire Newport. The old one was an 87 Fairmont and it's still, the other one, I don't know 87, COUNCILMAN PULVER-Eight, eight years old. MS. BOLEN-Yea, eight years old and it's still, that, that did look decent but we felt at that time, there was nothing we could do, it was already there. You know, but we feel like we can do something and we look to you for help in that regard. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MS. BOLEN-And oh, one other thing, the twenty-eight signatures on there, they may not all be within five hundred feet but I could tell you if I could compare the two lists that many of us our direct neighbors. MS. HERMANCE-Owners. MS. BOLEN-And we're owners and taxpayers. I don't know, I haven't ever seen Dave's list. Well, Kelly's list I guess, actually David is her boyfriend. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -I'll show you. Where are you located in reference to? MS. HERMANCE-Six Feld. (Ms. Hermance and Ms. Bolen indicated on map location of mobile home in reference to their homes to the board members) MS. BOLEN-And I can also point out, we have two signatures that are the same on here and when I went there. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The signatures are the same as on your list? MS. BOLEN-Yea, we have Edward Ladd, we have Kelly Ladd and we have, yea two, Edward and Kelly Ladd. COUNCILMAN PUL VER- The Y's are yeses? MS. HERMANCE-I have no clue. MS. BOLEN-I don't know who these other people are on Feld Avenue, Feld Avenue has only one, two, three, six houses on Feld Avenue. Two are Saville and another Hermance, they're not on Feld Avenue. Are they? MS. HERMANCE-What? MS. BOLEN-Who are these people on Feld, Saville and ... COUNCILMAN PULVER-Are you on Holden or Feld? MS. HERMANCE-I'm on Feld. MS. BOLEN-And I'm on Holden. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Okay, so you're right around in here somewhere? MS. BOLEN-These two do not live on Feld Avenue, I don't know who these people are. There's only six homes on Feld Avenue. It's Tammy and Edward and Cynthia ..., she's on their list, the Corentto which is on their list, and Jim Hermance which is on our list and Jane Hermance which is on our list, they're all on the direct street that this trailer is. COUNCILMAN PULVER-But you're here? MS. BOLEN-Right. COUNCILMAN PULVER-You're here. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-You mentioned the garage, that's why I COUNCILMAN PULVER-Yes, the garage is here. MS. BOLEN-I'm on Holden, right here. MS. HERMANCE-But she's not the main issue, I'm the main issue, she's just doing alot of arguing for me. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Alright, so then you're over here? (discussion regarding location of mobile home on map) MS. BOLEN-That's not right, we have pictures. MS. HERMANCE-This yellow house right here is my house. MS. BOLEN-There's the trailer, that's Corentto's. MS. HERMANCE-I can't, I don't, this doesn't look right to me. COUNCILMAN PULVER-So, it must be coming down this way, you must be down this way? MS. BOLEN-Yea, this is not right. This is Feld and this is Columbia. MS. HERMANCE-Yea, this is Feld, this is where I live right here. This is Feld Street, I have to come out here and take a right to go out onto W estern Avenue and this is the trailer. As soon as I come out to the Stop sign, the trailer is right here, my house is right here. This is my neighbor's and this is my house right here. MS. BOLEN-Two of those people on their list don't MS. HERMANCE-Yea, these people don't live on Feld Avenue. MS. BOLEN-As far as I know. MS. HERMANCE-I don't even know who they are. MS. SPRAGUE-Yes, they do, they live in the trailer right across ... at the end of Feld. MS. BOLEN-There is no MS. SPRAGUE-There's three trailers down there. MS. BOLEN-Not on Feld. MS. HERMANCE-Oh, they're way down, if they exist, then they would be way down here somewheres. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm not sure that this is. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Popularity issue. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, you know. MS. HERMANCE-It's probably not even an issue but. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We've got names on both lists so. MS. HERMANCE-It doesn't even matter, the point is it's down grading our neighborhood and we are really trying to upgrade this area. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone else, for, against? Any others opposing this before we go back to the attorney on the case? COUNCILMAN PULVER-Jim, one question, who was the variance made out to? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Marjorie Johnson. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Is this the replacement trailer or is the old one? MS. HERMANCE-That's a replacement. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Mike, do you want to. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Whose going to own this trailer that wants to come on the lot or is there now, the last time I looked? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Kelly Sprague. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-She's the owner. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Just two comments. The trailer is not on a foundation, that is one of the improvements that will be made if the board grants approval. That was not completed prior to us getting involved in this. It will be put on a foundation. The argument about reasons for hardships, I think is if you were introducing a new trailer completely to a vacant lot. It's not germane to this particular application. This lot from a zoning point of view has by variance the right to have a mobile home on it. The question of the same signatures, I said when I began and I tried to do this, not to get this into a very heated personal argument between those that are in favor, those that are against. I think people when you go to them have a tendency if you stand there long to sign what is in your hand and you have to take that with a little bit of salt when petitions are presented to you. Everybody presents a petition, this is in part why we presented a petition. The names that were not identifiable to those that oppose to this, I'm told are for a mobile home, for mobile homes that are on the end of Feld Street. Just for identification purposes only to I mention those. The issue of whether or not this was ever before the Town Board and whether or not the Town Board ever issued a permit before. I don't really have an answer to, Mrs. Johnson who is here tells me that when she applied, she went through what ever were then the steps that were pointed out to her. She did get a permit and did place or have a mobile home placed on the lot thereafter pursuant to that variance. COUNCILMAN TURNER-If! recall, I think the Town Board at one time did control the placement of mobile homes on sites outside of the, before they had an ordinance, outside of the mobile homes. Then they gave it up, they passed it to the Zoning Board and said, you will now handle the use variances on mobile homes and we handled it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, that throws out any illegal part on the building permits. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think if you look it up, I think you'll find I'm right. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I honestly don't think there's any legitimate question as to the right to have a mobile home on that lot. The mobile home that was there was damaged, it was damaged to the point that it was not habitable. Whether it was moved five hundred feet or moved two hundred feet away from the site, it was not habitable at that time that it was moved off site and that's what brought about this whole thing by Mrs. Johnson who still has a piece of property in the town that she's trying to get a reasonable return on, on which she pays taxes. I think what's been shown here and it's unfortunate that some of the people that opposed didn't take the time to even look at the landscaping plan or the improvements, have got to be at least equivalent or better then what was there. I don't know mobile homes that have the expensive landscaping that's been proposed here, typically you don't run into that. If you want us to get into identification of trees and what not, we can do that. I asked that question before as to what do those drawings or what does that drawing represent, what will be put in and we can specify that if you want. I think that's a significant improvement. And certainly if they let the other mobile home sit there, you probably would be convening as the Board of Health saying it's a building that has to be condenmed because it's not habitable and it was not being approved. So, there is an approvement there. I'm just trying to state for the record some of my understandings. MS. HERMANCE-They fixed that other trailer on site and then it was removed only because the owner got where they no longer wanted to deal with it anymore. He has moved on, its many years back when he lived there, he was renting it to his sister. His sister previously moved even before it was destroyed and that happened to get destroyed as she was. MS. BOLEN-Damaged. MS. HERMANCE-Or damaged, whatever, as she was moving. Somebody had come in, fixed it on site, then it was taken off and sold. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Do you have any record of conversations with Jim Hatin, with Dave Hatin as to the movement of that trailer? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No but I'm sure if we need to get it, we can get it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-My understanding was that he understood where it was being moved and it was a temporary move. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well I had John, after the last meeting, John Goralski went out and followed through and the trailer is moved now. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Regardless of what Dave told him, if Dave could not tell him that, what he told him isn't valid anyway. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Probably not but that is not the applicant here either. Anyone else? MR. TOM BOLEN-My name is Tom Bolen, I live on 12 1/2, I guess two or three lots away. The folks who signed in opposition to this proposed trailer, we, there was, they got some legal advice and it was that tonight the issue was really going to be not whether or not there was going to be nice landscaping done, it was really as to whether or not there was going to be a trailer allowed or not and they were given the impression from their conversations with the town and also with their attorney that this really was, for a lack of a better word, a no brainer because you have a trailer that was, wasn't supposed to be there in the first place and. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, but let's make sure we correct that. Is a viable statement, it's not supposed to be there in the first place? My understanding is from what I hear tonight that there were. MR. BOLEN-Okay, my point, what I'm getting at is that, that's the impression they got from speaking to the people in the town and also from their own attorney who they got advice from and that's the reason he's not here. I mean, if they thought that there was going to be an issue on this and there was going to be, the likelihood that this might be allowed, it would have been, the scales would have been a little better balanced because your, you know, lay people coming up and arguing the zoning codes of the town aren't prepared. It's just like, it's almost a no win situation. And the other thing is that people in the neighborhood are, have been upgrading and there's a number of new houses, there's been a number, alot of improvements in the area, you see it driving around a number of the houses and what you have here, it doesn't matter how much you spend on landscaping, when you take a twenty-five, a trailer, 1974 trailer that cost twenty-five hundred dollars and you put it in a neighborhood, what's that going to do to somebody who has a fifty thousand dollar house that they bought maybe five years ago and they've put fifteen into it, what happens to the value, the resale value of their homes? You can't, if you were to put a new trailer in there, maybe that's one thing. If you were to get away from the issue of whether or not trailers are allowed there or not which I don't feel that the twenty-eight people who have signed the petition have been fairly represented but then that's I don't know if they're will be an issue on that or another opportunity to come to the plate on that. But you can't, you can put in as many trees and driveways as, you can spend fifty thousand dollars on the landscaping, you still have a twenty-five hundred dollar trailer that mayor may not meet fire codes and you have other people in the neighborhood who are putting in new homes and upgrading their own house and there's no way around a twenty-five hundred dollar trailer. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? MS. BOLEN-Yes, they had mentioned that they were going to make all these improvements, the first trailer never had a foundation. They never had a foundation and this one was moved in and I spoke with somebody at the town and I wish I had gotten their name but they said, oh well, we feel really sorry for Kelly Sprague and I said, well we have compassion for them too, we know these people personally and this puts us all in a position and she said, well they're going to do all these improvements and we told them they had to side the trailer and I would think it would cost alot of money to side a trailer and when you pay twenty-five hundred dollars for it, you don't want to spend a certain amount to side it. But they ended up hand painting it with a brush and I mean, if you could go by, I don't know if you've gone by and seen the trailer. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, we have. MS. BOLEN-And if you could see it compared to the other one, and then compare it to the neighborhood and the houses, I mean the neighborhood has come along way. I mean there was a time when it was more run down but it definitely has come along way and we'd like to keep it going that way. MS. HERMANCE-You people must. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Wait, you can't speak from there. If you care to speak, please. MS. HERMANCE-Fine. You people must all live in Queensbury and I'm sure that you wouldn't appreciate a trailer going in. I also have property on Peggy Ann Road and I could just go slap a trailer in another words up on Peggy Ann Road and put it next to my neighbor's house up there. I plan to live there eventually but right now I'm living in this area and I don't appreciate somebody putting it in this area just like the people that on Peggy Ann Road don't appreciate it, and where ever you live in Queensbury also probably wouldn't appreciate it and I'm sure you value your home property just as much as we do. So, I hope you please take this into consideration whether we don't live in as nice an area as some of the other parts in Queensbury, some day it could be that nice. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Just again, factual, this mobile home does meet all codes. It has been inspected by Mr. Hatin. If you presume that it hasn't been, as Mr. Bolen did, is an injustice did to the applicant. The cost of this mobile home this August was twenty-five hundred dollars. Since then there have been about two thousand dollars in improvements. Probably you have a great deal of money to go into it beyond that. I think this is an improvement over the trailer that sat there that was made unhabitable by the fire, not the fire but by storm damage. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike but you've got to do your comparison to this proposed mobile home to the prior mobile home in the condition it was before the damage. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I don't think so, Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do, I do Mike otherwise, you know, it gets a little ridiculous. So, the mobile home before the damage was a 1987 mobile home and if you're going to upgrade from a 1987 mobile home, you know, I have to think about whether or not a 1974 is an upgrade from a 1987 mobile home. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, my response to that would be, the condition of the mobile home at the time of the application and it's a question then of whether or not it's an upgrade and I would COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, in the first place I don't even know if you can use the analogy because this Sprague did not own that home, it was owned by somebody else. It's been moved off the lot. You know, I think you're drawing some conclusions that you can't draw, frankly. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, you and I may disagree on this application COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We usually do, Mike. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Well, I'm sorry that we do because I try to use common sense when I read the ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm trying to use too. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, my point and I'll defer to counsel, what we're talking about here is not the right to have a mobile home on that lot. It's a question and I'll relay it to the question and solely to the question whether or not this is an upgrade and I think that you ought to keep your consideration in that area and it's a matter of judgement. I'll defer to your judgement. I think we have to defer your judgement, that's what your elected for but if you take a look at what's there now, what's proposed, has conditions, I'll think you're going to have a betterment and certainly you've had people speak both ways. I don't think you can go just by age, if it's been kept in good condition. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I don't think you can either because we have one hundred year old homes that are very meticulously kept and then we have one hundred year old homes that are not meticulously kept. So, age sometimes doesn't have anything to do with it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It's been through every inspection I think that we can find. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Do we have any pictures of what was there previously before the damage? MS. BOLEN-No but I believe they mentioned it at the last meeting where the trailer was parked so that when they did go to see the existing, their trailer you can see the other one to compare it. Didn't you mention that at the last meeting? COUNCILMAN PULVER-Yea, I went down there but I didn't go by, go looking for the other one. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think in addition to the inspection by Mr. Hatin, it also was inspected and there's a report in file by an engineer as to the structural soundness of the replacement mobile home and it's condition. Because there was that question for the building department, are you putting on as good a mobile home as what you were taking off. The applicant here went and got a structural inspection as well as Mr. Hatin's inspection and submitted that to the town. I don't have a copy of that. Do you have a copy of that, Mr. Martin? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Not with me, I only brought the historical information. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I think we have to get the personality out of it and go back to the legalities of this thing on what this property, if it already has a variance for the land and that's what we're talking about. Does the land have already a variance on it to allow a trailer and if the land has that, then how can we sit here and say, no, they can't put a trailer on there? Or does that null and void it when they remove a trailer, can you automatically put another trailer on it without seeking another variance? Does the variance stay with the property? COUNCILMAN PUL VER- The variance goes with the property. COUNCILMAN TURNER-The variance goes with the land. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-The variance stays with the property unless it's not used for a period of eighteen months or a year. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Eighteen months. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Right, if there's an eighteen month lapse between the time and COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-And there hasn't been the eighteen month lapse? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. MS. BOLEN-Can I say one more thing? In your code here, in the Article I, 113-12, number 3, it says that the Town Board in cases of hardship or extenuating circumstances may grant a permit and I don't see any hardship of someone coming from some other area where they were living with a trailer. I mean that could be a, anybody could say that's a hardship if they're in the same position that Kelly Sprague is in and there are no extenuating circumstances that I know of and this all within your articles here. COUNCILMAN PULVER-No she, they already have a variance for that property. It doesn't really have anything to do with their trailer. The property is allowed, like she mentioned that she owns a piece of property on Peggy Ann Road, you could not put a trailer on that piece of property. MS. HERMANCE-I understand that but why should you be able to on this property? COUNCILMAN PULVER-Because that had a variance. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Someone back in 1987 agreed or whatever it was, 1986. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Right, came in and agreed to get a variance. MS. HERMANCE-There was never a public hearing back then. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes there was. MS. HERMANCE-And if, then if there was then today if this gets approved tonight and you people allow this area of Queensbury to keep depreciating, then there's more people in this area who own property that is vacant that are going to put a trailer here on their property too if it's approved. So, it's going to become a trailer court. I think that trailers are meant for trailer parks. Why do they have trailer courts? And why should it be on a residential property and these other people want to do the same thing. If they see this one, Wayne Mechanic ... he's already been here to try to get it on, he's going to be back. ... is another one whose related to us and he does not want this here but he says if you're going to allow somebody else then he's going to rent it out and make income too. We all can make income, I could ... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, wait a minute, either you've got to be at the microphone here so we can get a record of this. But my point is, I believe we should table it. I believe we should get back to our counsel. I feel that you need to get back to your counsel, these two folks should be talking and then a final decision is arrived at by the board at a later date. I don't think that given the variance on that piece of property tonight, I don't have the legal interpretation or understanding to proceed with a vote. I really don't and I think that's the message that I'm getting from the other board members. So, MS. BOLEN-Can I mention one more thing just because I think it makes a difference. Maybe it doesn't, you can tell me if it doesn't. But again, in this article, it says when it is desired by the owner occupant of an existing mobile home located outside an established mobile home court to substitute a mobile home of superior construction and improved facilities and I don't know how anybody is going to define that unless you go there and see and if you do allow them to get this in, what happens if they don't do everything that they have put up in front of you tonight, if eventually you say, okay, this has to go through? COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I think that's a very good question and I wrote myself a note, what happens if? MS. BOLEN-Because I can't, I mean I didn't see any of the landscaping plans or anything but my brother- in-law is a landscaper and I do know that they tried to call him and he was kind of like flabbergasted that the trailer was twenty-five hundred dollars and he's a landscape construction guy, twenty-five hundred dollars is barely a job for hirn. Trees cost hundreds of dollars, hundreds of dollars. We can't afford to do our own. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. I'll take one more Mike and then we're going to go into adjournment. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-In fact, the landscaping plan that's before you was prepared by Mr. Bolen the person she spoke of. Miss Sprague's father is becoming involved in the project and that's the landscaping whether it's otherwise required or not required, might be a different business judgement. But as of October 1st, Miss Sprague does not have a place to live and that's my main point for coming back here. We've been here once before arguing about whether or not a public hearing was required and there was a delay involved with that which we understood. I think you've got as much information as you're going to get. I don't think there really is a real extensive legal issue as to whether or not we have a legitimate variance and that's basic, maybe I misunderstood what you're saying. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, that's what I said. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-But we have time sensitive construction and we have people that don't have a place to live. I would like to have you move forward this evening and I understand when I ask that sometimes, I do it at jeopardy. But you in fact are denying them their permit by delaying this thing, the same affect is denying it outright. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think the issue right here at least from what I've observed is strictly a case of the variance. The variance goes with the property and you could be very right, maybe all this public hearing stuff is passe, I'll say that not knowing. That's why I need time to convene with our attorney to clarify that issue. Is that reasonable? ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Is there an issue whether or not a variance runs with the property? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Not with me. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we have an issue. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-You've got the chairman, former chairman. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-of whether or not all the steps were gone through when the original mobile home was placed here and then we also have the issue of whether or not this is an upgrade because our ordinance very specifically says it to be an upgrade. So, those are the two, those are the two issues I have and I'm, I agree with you Fred, I think the public hearing should be left open. Some of these people had the kind of information that would make them think that an attorney was not necessary, they got that information from the town in an all fairness and you know, I'm sorry for the inconvenience and it's more then an inconvenience, I realize this but when things come into us at that kind of a time level, I don't think we should take a chance on making a miss step when we don't have all the facts and figures and I think we need to give Paul time to do some research and it's his advice to us that we not do it tonight and I frankly say, why do we have a Town Attorney if we're not willing to follow that advice. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Mr. Supervisor, may I ask Mr. Dusek a couple of questions on record? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Sure. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Doesn't a variance run with the land, Mr. Dusek, a use variance? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Usual cases that a variance, a use variance will run with the land. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Unless it's conditioned or something of that nature? ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's possible that there could be conditions on a use variance. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-In the decision that was read to you from Mr. Martin, there are no conditions. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I wasn't really listening that carefully when he read it but I'd have to review it to be sure. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Can I ask him to take a minute to look at it. I don't think we're talking about, if you're talking about no brainers, you're not talking about a long determination. I also would follow that by. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's my opinion and I'm speaking for one, that we postpone it, we'll leave the public hearing open and I need some more advice. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I was waiting for Paul's answer to the question. Do you want to ask it again, Mike? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, we could go on interrogation. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Are there any conditions to this? COUNCILMAN TURNER-There isn't any, I can tell you. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Are there any conditions to this approval? In those days you had a three or four sentence approval. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That was it. COUNCILMAN PUL VER- That was it. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-It either is or isn't. COUNCILMAN TURNER-There's no condition. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-My second question is even simpler. What is the statute oflimitations as to that variance if people acted in reliance and started using the property in 1987? The statute of limitations, it's my understanding is thirty days. Thirty days some eight years ago. You can't go back and question whether or not procedure was followed or not followed on that variance as to whether or not that's a legitimate variance. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If the board would like I can give you a general response and the response that I would have is this at this point. First of all, as all know and I think it's fairly clear that a use variance as Mike indicated normally runs with the land and normally you don't upset those types of things and they continue to run until such time as they expire. And quite candidly, when we get all said and done with the research in this case, that may be what we have here and it may be that there is no choice and the mobile home has a right to be there. On the other hand I have concerns, in this particular case because you have Chapter 113 of the code which sets forth a particular set of criteria which seems to run parallel and in addition to whatever maybe set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and you have to ask yourself what the affect of that language is upon the zoning requirements, especially since they're going before two different boards. So, that's one of the elements I would like to check out. In addition to that though, going back to the variance for a moment, I have learned in the past not just to read the variance itself but rather go back and look at the minutes of the meeting to make sure I understand what the language was that is set forth in the variance. Sometimes, especially back in the older days as Mike said there was only two or three sentences used and you can't necessarily get a proper read on the variance unless you go back and look at the minutes of the meeting as well. So, I'd like an opportunity to do that. And then finally, the other thing I think I might add just for the board's information, I prepared these resolutions on your behalf, the resolution that originally set the public hearing as well as a proposed resolution for tonight, the resolution originally though setting the public hearing was prepared at a time when the information that was given to me said that this was a mobile home that was in existence and that was being replaced by the occupant thereof or owner thereof because of a windstorm. I had no knowledge of the fact that this was a new person coming in onto the site nor did I have any knowledge or information about the use variance at the time that original resolution was drafted for you. During the course of this past week, much of this information that we're hearing tonight as trickled down to me and I've heard about it through various sources. I think in fairness to the town, as well as to this board, as well as to myself, I think it would proper to request a short period of time to check these things all out, research the law so that a proper decision can be made. I've learned over and over again from the past that if you shoot from the hip, you can very often be sorry for it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, with that we're going to leave the. COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I have one more question. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm sorry, go ahead. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Where is Kelly Sprague living now? MS. SPRAGUE-I have no clue. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Is she in the trailer? MS. SPRAGUE- I have to be out of my apartment by tonight at midnight and they've already extended until today. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's beyond my control. MS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Are you going to have more speak or not? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-On this issue? MS. EGGLESTON-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, let's take another one. COUNCILMAN PULVER-The other question I have is 1987, Ted, did they take the minutes of the meeting or did they just generalize them? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Generalize them. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Just generalized in 87, so. COUNCILMAN TURNER-You're not going to find much. COUNCILMAN PULVER-Yea, I know, I've looked back in those old minutes and, maybe Joyce can help us. MS. EGGLESTON-Good evening. I just wanted to say that, in this particular area for those of you who went and looked at it, I'm sure that you can see an area that is slowly coming around. If you went all around on those streets, you will see areas where people are trying to better that neighborhood. Now, with all due respect to Mr. O'Connor, a 1974 trailer does not enhance or, it is not better then a 1987. It is going backward and again, with all due respect to Mr. O'Connor, there isn't a trailer park in the Town of Queensbury that will take a 1974 trailer. They will not, you can call and ask. They will not allow it in their parks. So, I think from my own personal knowledge, I believe he's mistaken there. So, I urge you and I'd like to ask Mr. Dusek at the same time as he looks into these other matters, to please look into Mrs. Monahan's question where she reads that the replacement, if it is determined this is a trailer mobile home lot, then at least look at that part of the ordinance that says it has to better what's there, as good or better and certainly a 74 would be going backward in the Town of Queensbury. And we're looking to better what's here, the Master Plan says better these areas and for the sake of the people who live there with paying taxes, we're all taxpayers and they're looking out for their properties and you can't expect them to better their homes and put more money into it and then turn around and allow a 1974 mobile home to be placed near their homes. It's not fair. So, I'm asking Mr. Dusek to, Paul, would you please look at that section too of the. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Fred, the other thing, maybe just as an interim measure as somewhat of a compromise, the board also has the authority to grant temporary permits of a very limited time frame, if you wanted thirty days or sixty days or something like that. That might be an option also since there's a concern about not having a place to live and so on. MS. SPRAGUE-I'd just like to make a comment about that. If they did that, we have to do all the electrical work and it's going to cost us over a thousand dollars for all the electrical wiring to do all the stuff, they've got to do all that. What's the sense of us going in and doing all that for you determine ... SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, you don't want to do that. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Then she wouldn't be able to move in their tonight to begin with. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-She can have the electrical done tomorrow. MS. EGGLESTON-That's one more thing. If you have looked at this mobile home, there's no visible signs of two thousand dollars worth of improvements which Mr. O'Connor said has been made, not to the outside of the trailer. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, he said inside. MS. EGGLESTON-Did you say inside? I don't believe you said inside, you said two thousand dollars. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, okay. Thank you. MS. EGGLESTON-Okay? Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Alright, where do we go board? What's your pleasure? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Does the law read that the replacement has to improve, I guess there's some technicality about existing trailer has to be an improvement from the existing trailer? COUNCILMAN PUL VER-I think that's what Paul. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Superior, I think is the word it uses, doesn't it? It has to be superior to, didn't I hear you read that. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-A mobile home of superior construction, a mobile home of superior construction. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Superior construction. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-And or improved facilities for the existing mobile home. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -I'll move that it be tabled until the outcome can be proven that it's of superior construction. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And also that Paul researches some other legal issues that need to be determined. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Well, I would figure he would do that anyway. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I know, but I mean, I think you need to put that in your motion. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-So moved. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do you want to read a motion back to us Paul so that we're sure were covered or is that going to do it? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that's satisfactory. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, that's fine. Do I hear a second to that? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, I'll second it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, I would like to. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's get it on the table, motion made and seconded, now go ahead. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but wait, I think an amendment to that motion that you leave the public hearing open. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Public hearing left open. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I would recommend that you close the public hearing and the reason for that is, is that if, first of all if you leave it open you're going to have to readvertise because you've left it open. I'd rather see you close it because I'm concerned about the advertisement that went out in connection with this hearing because of the misinformation that we started off with. If you want to hold the public hearing open, you get the same results by simply re-advertising with a correct, you know, information as to exactly what's going on here. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, so you want to re-advertise the public hearing? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think, if it comes down to that I think that's what you would have to do anyway. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Are you going to withdraw that part of the motion that dealt with the open? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, we're going to close the public hearing and we're going to go back with the motion that said you will further investigate and research both the improvement piece, the superior construction along with the variance issue and any other issues? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right and be prepared to report to the board at your next meeting. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, it sounds to me like we are going to have another public hearing. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know that yet. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, in all fairness to this gentleman over here who spoke on behalf of his attorney that wouldn't be here because the town had told him that this was a dead, what was it, a brain dead or? COUNCILMAN PULVER-No brainer. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, with that. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I'll second that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Got a second to that. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-So that we don't come back and spin wheels, as to your first part of your motion, what are you looking for? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -For proof that it's of superior construction. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-Okay, we have an engineering report that it's a good trailer. We have an inspection by Mr. Hatin that it is an approved trailer. Are you looking for me to go out and get a realtor to come in and tell you that it's a better trailer then the other trailer? Or do you want me to get a mobile home dealer to tell you that it's a better, I can do both of those and I've talked to both. I can get people to come in and say that but I think you've got to go. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think the town should do that research. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I think you've got to go, well, we don't have an architectural review board for anything that I'm aware of in this town and I think you're getting awful close to that and I'm wondering what standards you're going to apply. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think Mike, in all honestly, we're going to have to take the advice of our attorney in terms of what we do need and what we've got to do in order to get through this process and that's what we'll expect at our next meeting. ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-I guess my point in frustration is, this is a single family home, no where in our Zoning Ordinance do we judge people or tell them what single family home they must live in and I don't know how you're discriminating against this particular applicant then you do with any other single family home owner within the town. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Mike, I don't see that we are at this ATTORNEY O'CONNOR-And that's a statement only, that you will agree or not agree. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-At this point, we aren't, we aren't. Okay, motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion with the board? If not COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, I think you ought to look at Section 179-83, destruction too. It says any structure. That's a structure that was destroyed by fire, flood, wind COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But it's by a different owner, it's a different owner and I'm not sure how that COUNCILMAN TURNER-That has nothing to do with it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm not sure about that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, we're going to vote. Please vote. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm leaving that up to the attorney. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Okay, we'll leave it up to hirn. (vote was taken) RESOLUTION TO TABLE MOTION RESOLUTION NO. 508, 95 INTRODUCED BY: MRS. CONNIE GOEDERT WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: MR. THEODORE TURNER Councilman Goedert-I move that it be tabled until the outcome can be proven that it's of superior construction. Councilman Monahan-And also that the Attorney research some other legal issues that need to be determined. Councilman Turner-I think you ought to look at Section 179-83, Destruction too. It says any structure, that's a structure. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - BENEFIT TAX CENTRAL QSBY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DIST. NOTICE SHOWN 8: 12 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll open the public hearing on the Benefit Tax Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. Mr. Shaw, would you care to report on that for us please? MIKE SHAW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF W ASTEW ATER-Okay, this public hearing is for the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District 1996 benefit tax roll. The roll has been updated with the necessary changes. The roll includes District Extension number 1 which is Walmart, Route 9 and District Extension number 2 which is a single parcel on Cronin Road. The class and point menu is unchanged for 1996. The total points for the roll has increased by 6.6 percent. We're estimating a decrease from 7 to 8 percent per point rate for 1996. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're expecting a decrease between 7 and 8 percent, that's MR. SHAW -Per point. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Per point. MR. SHA W -Yes, that's correct. That's based on the current budget request by the department. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, the typical one family homeowner would have 3 points and they would be looking, whatever their place is assessed for, they would be looking at a reduction of eighteen to twenty cents, is that what I understand? MR. SHAW -Possibly, close to thirty dollars reduction. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Close to thirty dollars? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because it's on more then just assessment, isn't it Mike? I forgot how that thing, that formula is. MR. SHAW-Well, benefit tax roll for residential based on, not assessment, it's based on acreage, it's one point per as Ted knows. So, basically the current rate for residential, less than one acre is three eighty four. Based on my projections, the current request, budget request is going to be some where around three fifty- five. We'll know exactly when the final budget has been finalized and passed. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Any reduction is a help. MR. SHAW-That will be it close to the original engineer's estimate of four hundred a year if you take in the o and M, the fifty bucks. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think the original cost was two hundred and ninety-eight dollars per household when we originally talked about the sewer. MR. SHAW-It very well could have been, the engineer's final report said four hundred dollars. COUNCILMAN TURNER-But then they got stuck in the mud for two and a half million and SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea. MR. SHAW -Right. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Then it went up. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anyone here to speak for or against that good news? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-What was the primary reason for the deduction. MR. SHAW-The primary reason for the deduction is the district extensions, Walmart, the Route 9 extension and the small parcel on Cronin Road. This does not include the possible refinancing numbers. If that refinancing goes through and is less, that will lower this rate also. This is based on, you know, current, request will be for the current bond rates we have. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, do I hear a motion? At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, held at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queens-bury, New York, on the 2nd day of October, 1995. RESOLUTION NO. 509,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver PRESENT: SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER ABSENT: NONE IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, AND STATE OF NEW YORK WHEREAS, a benefit assessment roll assessing the expense of improvements pursuant to ~202 of the Town Law has been prepared by this Town Board for and in consideration of certain district improvements consisting of general sanitary sewers in the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District of the said Town of Queensbury, which said roll has been heretofore completed and filed in the Office of the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, due notice of the completion of said benefit assessment roll and the time and place where this Board would meet to hear and consider any objections that might be made to said roll, and for adopting the same, was duly given by the Town Clerk by a publication of due notice thereof in the Post- Star; and WHEREAS, the Town Board met at the time and place specified and a hearing was duly had upon said benefit assessment roll and all persons desiring to be heard having been heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the benefit assessment roll of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District for the payment of the expense of public improvements within said Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, pursuant to ~202 of the Town Law of the State of New York be and it is hereby approved, confirmed, and adopted, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is instructed to annex to said benefit assessment roll a warrant which shall be signed by the Supervisor and countersigned by the Town Clerk commanding the Receiver of Taxes collect from the several persons named in said assessment roll the sum or sums opposite their respective names and to pay the same to the said Supervisor of the Town. The foregoing resolution was offered by Councilperson Theodore Turner and seconded by Councilperson Carol Pulver and adopted by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None DATED: October 2, 1995 Supervisor Champagne closed the public hearing. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF HICKORY ACRES SUBDIVISION ROAD AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO. 510,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of Nova Lane and a drainage easement in the Hickory Acres Subdivision, offered for dedication by Lewis and Ottati, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which required environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in ~617 .11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr.Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF NOVA LANE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE HICKORY ACRES SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 511,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Lewis and Ottati, Inc., has offered a deed to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury, Nova Lane and a drainage easement, which are more particularly described in a copy of the survey map and deed presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised that he has inspected the said road and drainage easement proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury and he finds the same, to the best of his knowledge, to meet Town of Queensbury specifications, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has made an inspection of water mains and appurtenances along said road and drainage easement proposed for dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road and drainage easement offered for dedication have been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the environmental effects of the proposed action by previous resolution and issued a Negative Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed for dedication of the said road and drainage easement be and the same is hereby accepted and approved, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute, sign, and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction, and that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which said deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the road be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be described as follows: Road Number: 506 Description: Beginning at Sweet Road and continuing in a southerly direction and ending at a Cul-De-Sac Name: Nova Lane Feet: 946' Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1995 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 512,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1995 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1995 budget: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-3510-4400 01-3510-2001 100. (Misc. Contractual) (Misc. Equipment) 01-3620-4100 01-3620-4110 600. (Telephone Use) (Vehicle Repair & Main.) 01-3620-4090 01-3620-4110 250. (Conference Exp.) (Vehicle Repair & Main.) 01-8020-4090 01-8020-4220 600. (Conference Exp.) (Training & Education) 01-8020-1610 01-8020-4080 1)00. (Planning Assistants) (Advertisement) COMPTROLLER: FROM: 001-1990-4400 (Misc. Contractual - Contingency) RECEIVER: FROM: 01-1330-4120 (Tax Receiver - Printing) 01-1330-4060 (Receiver - Service Contracts) 01-1330-2001 (Receiver - Misc. Equipment) 01-1330-1070 (Clerk - Part-Time) 01-1410-2001 (Misc. Equipment) 01-1410-2031 (Clerk's Computer Hardware) 01-1410-4040 (Clerk's Due & Register) 01-1410-4060 (Clerk's Service Contracts) WATER: FROM: 40-8320-2899 (Cap. Constr.) and BE IT FURTHER, TO: 01-1420-4130 (Legal Services) $ 4,500. TO: 01-1330-2031 (Computer Hardware) 01-1330-2031 (Receiver - Computer Hardware) 01-1330-2031 (Receiver - Computer Hardware) 01-1330-2031 (Computer Hardware) 01-1330-2031 (Computer Hardware) 1,341. 01-1330-2031 (Receiver - Computer Hardware) 01-1330-2031 (Receiver - Computer Hardware) 01-1330-2031 (Receiver - Computer Hardware) TO: 40-8310-4190 (Admin. Refund) 2,000. RESOLVED, that the 1995 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. $ AMOUNT: $ AMOUNT: 150. 750. 75. 320. 2. 100. 172. $ AMOUNT: Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM THE NEW YORK ST ATE DIVISION FOR YOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 513,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is eligible to apply for funds from the New York State Division for Youth, and WHEREAS, Harold R. Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation, has prepared an application for the total amount of monies ($10,000.00) for reimbursement of recreation funds to be expended for the administration, supervision, and operation of year-round recreation programs and activities in 1996, with the understanding that although it may be possible to receive up to $10,000, the grant will most likely be in the amount of $7,846.45, which is the amount based on the eligibility in terms of the Town's youth population, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes and directs Fred Champagne, Town Supervisor, to sign the funding application for submission to the New York State Division for Youth. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION DEEMING OLD RECEIVABLES UNCOLLECTIBLE RESOLUTION NO. 514,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has advised that, relative to Invoice #201 for $133.50 and Invoice #217 for $150.50 for technical assistance fees for Ann & Erwin Johnson, he would like to write off both of these amounts as the applicants claim they were never notified that the same would be sent to an engineer for review, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the accounts receivable referred to hereinabove for technical assistance charges shall be written off as uncollectible. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: Mr. Turner ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 515,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Board of Assessment Review, and WHEREAS, the present term of Paul Davidson and Dr. Charles Hauser will expire on September 30, 1995, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby re-appoints Paul Davidson and Dr. Charles Hauser to serve as members of the Board of Assessment Review, said term to expire on September 30, 2000. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT None RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING MEMBER TO CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 516,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Cemetery Commission, and WHEREAS, the present term of Mr. Robert Edwards expired in June of 1995, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby re-appoints Mr. Robert Edwards to serve as a member of the Cemetery Commission, said term to expire on December 31, 1998. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SRF APPLICATION AND PROJECT FINANCING AND LOAN AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 517,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, hereinafter also referred to as "Borrower," previously authorized the establishment of a sewer district known as the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, the construction of various sewage collection facilities for said district, and made arrangements for and contracted with the City of Glens Falls for the treatment of the collected sewage from the district, and thereafter, on at least one occasion, extended said sewer district, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury arranged for financing in connection with the establishment and construction of the aforedescribed sewer district, a portion of said financing being a part of the Town of Queensbury $8,000,000 Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 1987, a portion of additional costs incurred in connection with the project being previously financed through the New York State Revolving Loan Fund, and a portion of the same being financed by Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, Series 1995A, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, after thorough consideration of the various aspects of the problems and studying the available data, has determined that the Town should pursue refinancing of existing serial bonds in the amount of $4,700,000. to refinance the outstanding debt on the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, which constitutes a portion of the Town of Queensbury $8,000,000. Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 1987, this particular refinancing being identified as the SRF Project, and bearing project number 5550-01-1, and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, having determined that it is in the public interest to pursue such financing, and WHEREAS, the United States, pursuant to the Federal Water Quality Act of 1987 (as such may be amended from time to time, the "Water Quality Act"), requires each State to establish a water pollution control revolving fund to be administered by an instrumentality of the State before the State may receive capitalization grants under the Water Quality Act, and WHEREAS, the State of New York has, pursuant to the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Act, Chapter 565 of the Laws of New York 1989, as amended (the "SRF Act") established in the custody of the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (the "Corporation") a water pollution control revolving fund (the "Fund") to be used for purposes of the Water Quality Act, and WHEREAS, the Corporation has been created, reconstituted and continued pursuant to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation Act, as amended (the "Act") being Chapter 744 of the Laws of 1970, as amended, and constituting Title 12 of Article 5 of the Public Authorities Law and Chapter 43-A of the Consolidated Laws of the State of New York, and constitutes a public benefit corporation under the laws of the State of New York, being a body corporate and politic with full and lawful power and authority to provide financial assistance from the Fund, and WHEREAS, the Corporation has the responsibility to administer the Fund and to provide financial assistance from the Fund to municipalities for eligible projects, as provided in the SRF Act, and WHEREAS, the SRF Act authorizes the establishment of a program for financial assistance for planning, design, and construction of eligible projects, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as follows: 1. The filing of an application for SRF assistance in the form required by the Corporation in conformity with the SRF Act is hereby authorized, including all understandings and assurances contained in said application. 2. The following person, as Chief Fiscal Officer, is directed and authorized as the official representative of the Borrower to execute and deliver an application for SRF assistance, to execute and deliver the Project Financing and Loan Agreement and any other documents necessary to receive financial assistance from the Fund for the Project, to act in connection with the Project and to provide such additional information as may be required and to make such agreements on behalf of the Borrower as may be required: Town Supervisor. 3. The official designated above is authorized to make application for financial assistance under the SRF Program for either short -term or long-term financing or both. 4. One (1) certified copy of this Resolution shall be prepared and sent to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12205-2603. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately and is conditioned upon: a) the Town of Queensbury not being committed to the refinancing for which the application is authorized herein, and for which the Chief Fiscal Officer is directed and authorized to take certain action, unless, when the sale of bonds has occurred or is imminent, or whatever the last opportunity of the Town Board is to review the arrangements, that the Town Board specifically, by Town Board resolution, further authorizes the refinancing; and b) that in the event that the Town Board, in its sole discretion, determines not to proceed with the refinancing, it shall not be liable for any penalty or other cost or amount to New York State, the Environmental Facilities Corporation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, or the Federal Government. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None REFUNDING BOND RESOLUTION DATED OCTOBER 2, 1995 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,700,000 OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL FINANCE LAW AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN RELATION THERETO. RESOLUTION NO. 518,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York (the "Town") heretofore issued its $8,000,000. original aggregate principal amount Public Improvement (Serial) Bonds, 1987 (the "Prior Bonds"), pursuant to various bond resolutions for various objects or purposes, all as set forth and described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, such Prior Bonds being dated March 15, 1987, and maturing, or matured, in the amounts and on the dates set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part thereof, and WHEREAS, the Town desires to refund the Prior Bonds by issuing certain refunding bonds and selling such bonds to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation ("EFC"), and WHEREAS, it would be in the public interest to refund the Prior Bonds by the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to ~90.1O of the Local Finance Law, and WHEREAS, such refunding will result in present value savings in debt service as required by ~90.1O of the Local Finance Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury (by the favorable vote of not less than two-thirds of all the members of the Town Board) as follows: SECTION 1. For the object or purpose of refunding the $4,138,000 outstanding principal balance of the Prior Bonds, including providing moneys which, together with the interest earned from the investment of certain of the proceeds of the refunding bonds herein authorized, shall be sufficient to pay (A) the principal amount of the Prior Bonds, (B) the aggregate amount of unmatured interest payable on the Prior Bonds to and including the date on which the Prior Bonds mature in accordance with the refunding financial plan, as hereinafter defined, and (C) the costs and expenses incidental to the issuance of the refunding bonds herein authorized, including the development of the refunding financial plan, as hereinafter defined, the fees and costs of EFC, the costs and expenses of executing and performing the terms and conditions of the escrow contract, as hereinafter defined, and fees and charges of the escrow holder, as hereinafter described, there are hereby authorized to be issued the Public Improvement Refunding (Serial) Bonds, Series 1996A of the Town in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,700,000. pursuant to the provisions of ~90.1O of the Local Finance Law (the "Refunding Bonds"), it being anticipated that the amount of Refunding Bonds actually to be issued will be approximately $4,410,000. as described in ~4 hereof. The Refunding Bonds shall be dated such date as shall hereafter be determined by the Town Supervisor pursuant to ~4 hereof, shall be of the denomination of $5,000. or any integral multiple thereof not exceeding the principal amount of each respective maturity and shall mature annually and shall bear interest semi-annually thereafter on such dates as shall be determined by the Town Supervisor pursuant to ~4 hereof, at the rate or rates of interest per annum as may be necessary to sell the same, all as shall be determined by the Town Supervisor. SECTION 2. The Refunding Bonds shall be executed in the name of the Town by the manual or facsimile signature of the Town Supervisor, and a facsimile of its corporate seal shall be imprinted thereon and attested by the Town Clerk. The Refunding Bonds shall contain the recital required by ~90.1O(j)(4) of the Local Finance Law and the recital of validity clause provided for in ~52.00 of the Local Finance Law and shall otherwise be in such form and contain such recitals, as the Town Supervisor shall determine. SECTION 3. It is hereby determined that: (A) The maximum amount of the Refunding Bonds authorized to be issued pursuant to this resolution does not exceed the limitation imposed by ~90.1O(b)(1) of the Local Finance Law. (B) The maximum period of probable usefulness permitted by law at the time of the issuance of the Prior Bonds for each of the objects or purposes for which the Prior Bonds were issued is as shown upon Exhibit A; (C) The last installment of the Refunding Bonds will mature not later than the expiration of the maximum period of probable usefulness of each of the objects or purposes for which the Prior Bonds were issued, or in the alternative, the weighted average remaining period of probable usefulness of the objects or purposes (or clauses of objects or purposes) financed with each series of the Prior Bonds or the weighted average remaining period of probable usefulness of all objects or purposes (or classes of objects or purposes) financed with all the Prior Bonds, in accordance with the provisions of ~90.IO(c)(1) of the Local Finance Law; and (D) The estimated present value of the total debt service savings anticipated as a result of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds, computed in accordance with the provisions of ~90.1O(b)(2)(c) of the Local Finance Law, is as shown in the Refunding Financial Plan described in ~4 hereof. SECTION 4. The financial plan for the refunding authorized by this resolution (the "Refunding Financial Plan"), showing the sources and amounts of all moneys required to accomplish such refunding, the estimated present value of the total debt service savings and the basis for the computation of the aforesaid estimated present value of total debt service savings, are set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. The Refunding Financial Plan has been prepared based upon the assumption that the Refunding Bonds will be issued in the principal amount of $4,410,000. and that the Refunding Bonds will mature, be of such terms, and bear interest as set forth in Exhibit C. This Town Board recognizes that the amount of the Refunding Bonds, and the maturities, terms, and interest rate and rates borne by the Refunding Bonds to be issued by the Town will most probably be different from such assumptions and that the Refunding Financial Plan will also most probably be different from that attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to determine the amount of the Refunding Bonds to be issued, the date of such bonds and the date of issue, maturities and terms thereof, the provisions relating to any redemption of Refunding Bonds prior to maturity, the terms of the private sale of the Refunding Bonds to EFC, including the form, terms, and conditions of the SRF Project Financing and Loan Agreement to be prepared by EFC, the amount of the annual installments of the Refunding Bonds to be paid pursuant to ~90.IO(c)(3) of the Local Finance Law, whether the Refunding Bonds shall be sold at a discount in the manner authorized by ~57.00(c) of the Local Finance Law, and the rate or rates of interest to be borne thereby, and to prepare, or cause to be provided, a final Refunding Financial Plan for the Refunding Bonds, and all powers in connection therewith are hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor; provided that the terms of the Refunding Bonds to be issued, including the rate or rates of interest borne thereby, shall comply with the requirements of ~90.1O of the Local Finance Law. The Town Supervisor shall file a copy of his certificate determining the details of the Refunding Bonds and the final Refunding Financial Plan with the Town Clerk not later than ten (10) days after the delivery of the Refunding Bonds, as herein provided. SECTION 5. The Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to enter into an escrow contract (the "Escrow Contract") with a bank or trust company located and authorized to do business in this State as he shall designate (the "Escrow Holder") for the purpose of having the Escrow Holder act, in connection with the Prior Bonds, as the escrow holder to perform the services described in ~90.1O of the Local Finance Law. SECTION 6. The faith and credit of said Town are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Refunding Bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such bonds becoming due and payable in such year. Should the assessments upon benefitted real property be insufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such bonds, there shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of said Town a tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such bonds as the same become due and payable. SECTION 7. All of the proceeds from the sale of the Refunding Bonds, including the premium, if any, but excluding accrued interest thereon, shall immediately upon receipt thereof be placed in escrow with the Escrow Holder for the Prior Bonds. Accrued interest, if any, on the Refunding Bonds shall be paid to the Town Clerk to be expended to pay interest on the Refunding Bonds on the next bond payment date of such Refunding Bonds. Such proceeds as are deposited in the escrow deposit fund to be created and established pursuant to the Escrow Contract, whether in the form of cash or investments, or both, inclusive of any interest earned from the investment thereof, shall be irrevocably committed and pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Bonds in accordance with ~90.1O of the Local Finance Law, and the holders, from time to time, of the Prior Bonds shall have a lien upon such moneys held by the Escrow Holder. Such pledge and lien shall become valid and binding upon the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and the moneys and investments held by the Escrow Holder for the Prior Bonds in the escrow deposit fund shall immediately be subject thereto without any further act. Such pledge and lien shall be valid and binding as against all parties having claims of any kind in tort, contract or otherwise against the Town irrespective of whether such parties have notice thereof. SECTION 8. The Town Supervisor is further authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to ensure the continued status of the interest on the Refunding Bonds, as excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes pursuant to ~ 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and, if applicable, to designate the Refunding Bonds authorized by this resolution as "qualified tax-exempt bonds" in accordance with ~265 of the Code. SECTION 9. The Town Supervisor is further authorized to enter into a continuing disclosure agreement with the initial purchaser of the bonds authorized by this resolution, if required, containing provisions which are satisfactory to such purchaser in compliance with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SECTION 10. The Town hereby determines that the issuance of the Refunding Bonds is a Type II Action that will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore, no other determination or procedures under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQR") is required. SECTION 11. Subject to compliance with the provisions of Local Finance Law ~90.1O, the Refunding Bonds shall be sold at private sale to EFC and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to negotiate for such private sale. Subject to compliance with ~90.1 0 of the Local Finance Law and other applicable provisions of the Local Finance Law, the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute and deliver the SRF Project Financing and Loan Agreement for the Refunding Bonds in the name and on behalf of the Town providing the terms and conditions for the sale and delivery of the Refunding Bonds. After the Refunding Bonds have been duly executed, they shall be delivered by the Town Supervisor in accordance with said SRF Project Financing and Loan Agreement upon the receipt by the Town of said purchase price, including accrued interest. SECTION 12. The Town Supervisor and the Town Clerk and all other officers, employees and agents of the Town are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the Town to execute and deliver all certificates and other documents, perform all acts and do all things required or contemplated to be executed, performed or done by this resolution or any document or agreement approved hereby, including, but not limited to, the SRF Project Financing and Loan Agreement. SECTION 13. All other matters pertaining to the terms and issuance of the Refunding Bonds shall be determined by the Town Supervisor and all powers in connection therewith are hereby delegated to the Town Supervisor. SECTION 14. The validity of the Refunding Bonds may be contested only if: (1) (a) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Town is not authorized to expend money; or (b) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit, or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such publication; or (2) Said obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of New York. SECTION 15. The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish this resolution, or a summary thereof, together with a notice in substantially the form provided by ~81.00 of said Local Finance Law, in the official newspaper of said Town for such publication. SECTION 16. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to vote on a roll call, which resulted as follows: Fred Champagne VOTING AYE Connie Goedert VOTING AYE Betty A. Monahan VOTING AYE Carol A. Pulver VOTING AYE Theodore Turner VOTING AYE The foregoing resolution was thereupon declared duly adopted. (All Exhibits found in Town Board Meeting file) RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE OF ALAN OPPENHEIM, ACO PROPERTY ADVISORS, INC./HUDSON POINTE, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 519,95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is now presently considering an amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and map, and more specifically considering a request for change of zone by Alan Oppenheim, ACO Property Advisors, Inc./Hudson Pointe, Inc., whereby a parcel of land owned by Hudson Pointe, Inc., known as Tax Map No. 148-1-3, located at 777 Corinth Road, in the Town of Queensbury would be changed from the current zoning of SR-IA (Suburban Residential- 1 Acre) to NC-1O (Neighborhood Commercial Zone- 10,000 Square Feet), with the following restrictions and/or conditions: Lot Number/Size: Shall be subject to subdivision approval by the Planning Board. Minimum lot size in the designated commercial area shall be one-half acre in size. Minimum Frontage on Public Road: Forty (40) feet. The commercial lots to be created along Corinth Road may front on a road over the sixty foot (60') ROW. The road servicing these lots shall be constructed to the Town standard by the developer of the new commercial lots. Minimum Yard Setbacks: One Acre Lot: Front Side 10 foot minimurn. Rear 30 feet The sum of the side yards shall equal 30 feet or more with a 20 feet One-Half Acre Lot: Front Side Rear 30 feet 10 feet 20 feet One-Third Acre Lot: Front Side Rear 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Permeable Area of Lot (%): One Acre Lots One-Half Acre Lots One-Third Acre Lots 50% 30% 30% Maximum Building Height: 40 foot Permitted Principal Uses: Recreational facilities, community center/day care center with seventy-five child maximum capacity; convenience store with gasoline pumps and no automobile sales or repair; grocery store; bank; hardware store; professional office including beauty shop. All of the above uses in designated commercial areas are allowed upon site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. Permitted Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses and accessory use structures incidental to a permitted principal use. Density: One principal building up to 7,500 square foot in size per lot. Green Space: The developer(s) shall provide an area equivalent to percent (10%) of the overall gross lot area or 2,178 square feet, whichever is greater, to planted green space. To the extent that the green space is not contained in any required buffer areas, the green space shall be located in the front yard of the lot. Landscaping of this area shall be subject to review by the Town Beautification Committee and Planning Board Site Plan review and approval. Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions: The execution by Developer of a Covenant of Declarations and Restrictions which restrict and limit the use of the property as indicated above and which may only be changed or modified by Town Board approval, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and Map; and WHEREAS, on or about July 17,1995, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a resolution authorizing the submission of a request for rezoning of certain property owned by Hudson Pointe, Inc., on 777 Corinth Road, in the Town of Queensbury to Planned Unit Development, to the Planning Boards of the Town of Queensbury and Warren County for recommendation and WHEREAS, on or about the 15th day of August, 1995, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury adopted a resolution to recommend to the Town Board the rezoning of the subject property, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval, concurring with local conditions, of the requested rezoning, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, or modify the Ordinance and map, it is necessary pursuant to Town Law ~265 and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that the applicant for the proposed rezoning has submitted a Part I Short Environmental Assessment Form and a number of exhibits, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to a proposed amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map described in the preambles of this resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on October 16th, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building & Codes to ascertain a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within 500' of the area to be rezoned, and further authorizes and directs the said Executive Director to arrange for notification of the proposed rezoning to all said property owners that a public hearing will be held, mailing to said owners a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is also hereby authorized and directed to send notice of the public hearing to Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said public hearing, the proposed rezoning and notify the involved agencies that the Town Board desires to be lead agent and that a SEQRA determination will not be made until after the public hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is also hereby authorized and directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency and Warren County Planning, if necessary or not already done, in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY TRAINEE IN THE TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 520, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of establishing, on a temporary basis, the position of Confidential Administrative Secretary Trainee in the Highway Department, and appointing Ms. Cheryl Knopka of 5 Oaktree Circle, Queensbury, to that position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby establishes the temporary position of Confidential Administrative Secretary Trainee and hereby appoints Ms. Cheryl Knopka to that position at a rate of pay of $9. per hour, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hourly wages paid to Ms. Knopka shall be from the appropriate Town of Queensbury Payroll Account. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion - Computer Bid Supervisor Champagne referred to the resolutions before the board that was not part of their packets, noting one being the budget amendment and the other regarding the data processing project. Town Board held discussion regarding the bid and agreed to hold from taking any action until further reVIew. ATTORNEY MATTERS Attorney Dusek referred to the issue concerning the QEDC revolving loan fund. At the last board meeting we had a discussion concerning the subgrantee agreement between the Town of Queensbury and QEDC, and during the course of the discussions I mentioned that QEDC had raised an issue as to who would pay for the revolving loan fund draft documents from Bob Murray. I don't know if you're prepared tonight to address that or not but they are inquiring as to whether that would be a town expense or a QEDC expense. What it is, is that the sub grantee agreement, they've drafted, I've reviewed, I went over that but the sub grantee agreement has to rely upon another document called the revolving loan fund criteria which this board has to set up or approve and somebody has to draft it. Bob Murray of Shelter Planning has indicated that he has the ability to prepare that document to be in compliance with HUD. My recommendation is that you need somebody, whoever does it should be of that type of person who can do it and I would be hesitant to want to do it on my own not having worked with HUD other then to read the regulations. I think you would be far better off and probably get a faster result getting somebody like a Bob Murray to do it and I think QEDC, from what I pick up feels the same way. The question is though, because they haven't asked their attorney to draft it either, they're going to a specialist but as I said the question they've raised is who should pay for that document? Councilman Pulver noted that at the QEDC meeting it was decided that we really need some expertise in this field. Executive Director, Mr. Martin noted that it's an eligible expense from the loan proceeds if the board chooses. Councilman Monahan questioned whether there was an estimated cost. Supervisor Champagne noted around three thousand dollars. Executive Director, Mr. Martin noted that it's a very important document. Town Board held discussion, agreed that the cost should be paid for from the loan proceeds and requested the attorney to prepare the necessary resolution for the next regular board meeting. Attorney Dusek noted there are additional matters for Executive Session. Councilman Pulver noted that there are some employees from the Water Department that would like to come before the Town Board to ask some questions regarding their salaries. Councilman Monahan recommended that a formal plan of action be taken where the employees go to the department head and then the department head comes before this Town Board. Councilman Pulver noted that the employees did go to the department head, the department head came to the committee, we discuss it in committee and it was the recommendation of the committee to take it to the Town Board. Councilman Monahan recommended that the department head bring it before the board. Councilman Pulver noted that the department head can't answer these questions because the department head was not in on the salary sessions that the Town Board held. Councilman Monahan noted that she has requested the department head to provide some information about these jobs and until that's done, I'm not prepared to deal with it any further. Supervisor Champagne noted concern whether or not the discussion is for open session. Councilman Pulver noted that they originally had requested an executive session to discuss salary histories but you denied that and suggested that I bring them to open forum which they would probably be glad to do but I thought that this would save everyone the embarrassment of doing that since it is a private matter, since we are the Town Board, since we should have an open door policy. If we have employees that have questions that need to be answered, I think we are here to answer them. Supervisor Champagne noted that the board will act on this and a decision will be made. I don't think I'm prepared tonight to say yes or no. No decision was made by the board at this time. OPEN FORUM 9: 18 P.M. Mr. John Salvador-Referred to the discussion regarding the employees and the open door policy, supports that policy but stated that the open door is not the door to the meeting room but rather the door to the Supervisor's Office as the administrator of this town. Supervisor Champagne-Agreed and noted that his door is always open. Mr. Salvador-Would like to address the board as the Board of Health. Referred to the meeting held recently at the town regarding the Harris Bay Yacht Club and their waste facilities. Unsure of the outcome of that meeting but concerned that we've got something different from a wastewater system discharging to groundwater in the area of the wetlands. We should take a look at what's being discharged and I really think they need a Speedies Permit. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Noted, in terms of the Speedies permit, it's not something we have any jurisdiction over, it's a DEC permit. We've been in contact with them, I think they've been down to the site to look at it and it's really their call, their jurisdiction. Mr. Salvador-My point is, the chemistry, the bacteriological action that was going on in those septic tanks in the past, is not going on any more. That's not going on any more and you're getting nutrients discharged in that system that are eventually finding there way to the wetlands and that's not something you want. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-A Speedies permit is meant for any discharge of any waters. Mr. Salvador-Yes, exactly, they can regulate the discharge. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Even drainage. Councilman Monahan-But for the Speedies permit somebody has to prove to DEC satisfaction that they're doing more then a thousand gallons per day. Mr. Salvador-A Speedies permit is applicable to wastewater systems of greater then a thousand gallons. I'm saying, what the Harris Bay Yacht Club has is no longer a wastewater system. Councilman Monahan-That's why I raise the question, does DEC have a definition of wastewater that maybe we could take John's point and go after. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's a point we can raise with thern. Mr. Salvador-Secondly, another issue for the Board of Health, in 1989 a group of people, Lieutenant Crane from the Park Commission, Dan Olson from Warren County, Dave Hatin and Dr. Evans from the town made an inspection of most of the marinas on the east side of Lake George. We were written up in this report, all these deficiencies we had and we were being compared to the latest Lake George Park Commission Regulations for what marinas were required to have in order to get a marina operator's permit. The Park Commission since then have changed the regulations because it was impacting too many people. Some of us were dumb enough to go ahead and update the facilities, it cost alot of money to be in compliance. But the fact remains that today there are still facilities on this list that are not in compliance. The worst thing is, it's not that they're not in compliance with the Park Commission regulations, they're not in compliance with the Health Board and it has not been followed up on. Referred to town ordinance number 34 adopted in 1972 which created a vessel regulation zone on some of the bays in North Queensbury and the ordinance amended in 1973 creating a vessel regulation zone on Dunham's Bay. The town put the five mile buoys at the mouth of the bay. You had alot of other obligations under that law but you chose not to address those. Those buoys are your responsibility, the enforcement of the five mile an hour speed zone is your responsibility. In the last week, the five mile an hour buoys have been taken away and the boats are moving around at pleasure, those who know they're not there and it's not being enforced. We still rent rowboats, canoes and small craft from our facility and we will do that for another week or so before we close. What's going on? They usually take them out but around the end of October. Supervisor Champagne-That's a good question and we'll check that. Mr. Salvador-Referred to the upcoming scheduled outing with the Lake George Park Commission for a milfoil tour of Lake George. Would like the town to be aware that the Lake George Park Commission is looking for local government to fund the milfoil problem. Referred to the scheduled zoning conference on October 6th being held by Adirondack Community College and the Lake George Park Commission at AC.C. Questioned whether Mr. Martin will be participating? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Mr. Salvador-For what reason? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-To see if I can learn anything, maybe talk to other Zoning Administrators on the lake. It's a good forurn. Mr. Salvador-Questioned how the work of the comprehensive planning committee fits in to this sort of thing? The Park Commission, they don't have anything to do with zoning. Why go? Why spend our money and our time? Supervisor Champagne-I don't think that's your decision. I think that's for the board to either agree or disagree that he should be there. Mr. Salvador-Questioned whether the town budget addresses privatization of emergency services? Supervisor Champagne-No. Mr. Salvador-Referred that certain personnel working for the town have the privilege of driving a town vehicle and questioned whether this budget reflects an allowance for the fact that, that vehicle is used part time to simply drive to and from work? Does it reflect in their salary? Councilman Pulver-In the case of Rick Missita, he's charged a fee by the day. Councilman Monahan-Not by the town, that's an IRS regulation. Councilman Pulver-He has to pay tax on that. Councilman Monahan-As far as the town is concerned, there is no enumeration that the town gets from Mr. Missita. What the IRS says, is that on your statement, the town must show a certain value to that and he has to report it as income. Supervisor Champagne-Are you saying that these people should be paying the town for the use of that vehicle to and from? Mr. Salvador-Yes, there should be an adjustment for mileage. Supervisor Champagne-You're saying there's some legal language that spells that out? Mr. Salvador-I'm sure the state... Supervisor Champagne-I'd be pleased to have you submit something like that. Mr. Salvador-Well, you have a better shot of getting it from the Comptroller then I would. Supervisor Champagne-I've been involved with vehicles being used by employees for the last thirty-five years and this is the first time I've heard that, that particular scenario is in existence. Miss Cathy Geoffroy, Comptroller-I've only heard of putting it on their W2's. Mr. Salvador-Referred to the Stormwater Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow and would like to make sure that with all we're doing with our stormwater, that we're going to do something with route 9L. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, just as I stated to you this morning on the phone. Mr. Jack Cushing-I'm speaking as a private citizen, not from any of the organizations that I belong to you. I feel that I do know what I talk of because I've been in charge of developing these very policies for years. I've been with a major Fortune Five Hundred Company for forty years. I've been on the boards of the American Society of Training Directors, the board of the Society of Personnel Directors and so I know the policies of hundreds and hundreds of large companies. They do allow all of their employees to go up to the highest level that they possibly can. Let me draw an analogy. This is what promotes unionisrn. Now, I'm not against unionism one single bit but this is how they were formed, where individuals or boards in companies do not allow the lowest, right down to the lowest employee to speak their mind to the highest authority. Now if a union personnel person does not like what is going on then the union has very, very strict grievance procedures. They are very set procedures. They are very arduous procedures and you have to follow them and you go up to a certain level which the union agrees with and then a conclusion is forthcoming and the decision is made and that is pretty much the end of it unless they want to go to mediation. Now, if we're talking about salary people with or with out grievance procedures, they can go to the top person of that jurisdiction, that's always been the way. Yes, they absolutely must go to the supervisor first. Yes, they must absolutely go to the department head first but if this valued employee is not satisfied with the explanation that he or she gets from the department or the supervisor in charge of that person, not satisfied then he can and she can go to the top of that organization. They are not shut out, believe me. Don't, please don't make an issue out of something that is just good human relations. Talk to them. Talk to them and let them be heard. Most of the times, with the proper explanations from people in authority like yourselves, who are articulate and know what's going on, the problem will disappear and go away. And the reason it goes away is because they feel they have been heard. They may not be satisfied but they've been given the opportunity to talk with you and normally the problem will go away. It works. If you don't allow this, you are going to have a festering sore which is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. I just wanted to give you a little bit of my own experience in this whole matter. Please, don't make an issue out of it. Councilman Monahan-Jack, I think you misunderstood my position. My position was that their first step was to go through the department head. This has not been done. That is what I'm saying. Supervisor Champagne-I think also, Jack, this is a pretty sensitive issue and I think everyone on this board is fully aware of it. All I personally am asking for is for this board to agree on some procedural policy statement that allows this to happen. If there's a problem out there, I should become aware of it and once I'm aware of it, if you don't like my answer, then be recognized to come to the board. Councilman Monahan-I did talk to the department head, he was not even aware that one of these people had a problem. Councilman Pulver-Excuse me Jack, I want to disagree with Mrs. Monahan, all three of these people were there with the department that wanted to speak to the board. They went to the department head first, then they came to committee meeting. The way that we're set up, they don't have to go to the supervisor, they can go to their town board members in committee which is what they did. There was two of us there, the department head was there and these three people and this is my witness. Councilman Goedert-That's correct. Mr. Cushing-All I'm saying at this particular point, communicate with each other and don't let it become a major issue because you will be forever hurting on it. Mr. Gilbert Boehm-Referred to the budget process going on now with the fire companies. Would like to ask the board to ask North Queensbury to include in their insurance a rider, if that's what's necessary that will cover meetings for bonafide organizations to be held there instead of having to obtain individual Insurance. Supervisor Champagne-Yes, we've had discussion on that. They're very aware of it, they're going to review it and get back to us. Mr. Boehm-Referred to the previous discussion regarding the computer equipment that the town is in the process of negotiating to obtain. Questioned who is responsible for interrogating the system. Supervisor Champagne-The town's consultant, Preston and he put the spec together, reviewed the specifications and made the recommendation. Mr. Boehm-Will he analyze where the problem is if there's a problem? Supervisor Champagne-He has to determine between the software, hardware and the supplier, yes. Mr. Boehm-Referred to the earlier discussion regarding the temporary position for the highway department and questioned the meaning of temporary? Supervisor Champagne-We have a retirement pending in April and we're asking for this person to come on board now to be properly trained in the secretarial area. Mr. Pliney Tucker-Questioned if AMG is meeting their financial obligations to the town. Comptroller, Ms. Geoffroy-Noted that the town has not received any more money since they filed bankruptcy. Mr. Tucker-Referred to the water plant expansion project and questioned if the town is responsible for doing the boring for the sixteen inch pipe under the northway? Supervisor Champagne-Noted, that the town is responsible for bonding for the boring. Attorney Dusek-Yes, actually, there's two things going on. The town is responsible for under West Mountain Road and as far as under the northway is concerned, the contractor will do the boring and the town has arranged for the bond through New York State. We found that was the most economical and quickest approach to handling the various issues that came up at the time. Mr. Tucker-Why couldn't the contractor get it? Attorney Dusek-He could but his expense was alot higher and the town was required to sign an indenmification agreement over to the bonding company. I didn't like the agreement that was presented to the town in terms of the conditions that were set forth in it. I was troubled by that and secondarily, we found out that the town could also obtain the same bond at a much lower price. So, I recommended that as a solution to the board. There was an adjustment in the bidding price. Mr. Tucker-Referred to the article and picture in the paper where men were planting trees at Hovey Pond and that the money came from the small cities grant. Questioned how the small cities grant got involved? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's not a small cities grant. Comptroller, Ms. Geoffroy-It was federal dollars for a tree planting grant where we paid fifty percent of the cost of putting in x number of trees. The grant wasn't very large. Supervisor Champagne-The grant was about four thousand dollars. Comptroller, Ms. Geoffroy-We have to pay at least fifty percent, we have to match. Mr. Tucker-Our share is coming out of the park recreation fund? Comptroller, Ms. Geoffroy-From the Hovey Pond Capital Project fund. Mr. Tucker-Questioned whether there's any financial statements from QEDC filed with the town? Supervisor Champagne-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I will say that they are audited every year. Mr. Cushing-I'm the treasurer of QEDC and every meeting I have a financial statement which is made public which all the members of the board get. So, every other month I have a big financial statement for them. At the end of the year we are audited by a reputable auditing or accounting firm and the results are made public too. Mr. Tucker-I'm looking to get the year end financial report, can I get a copy. Mr. Cushing-I will close the books on December 31st of each year and I'd very happy to give you a copy of it. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 10:05 P.M. Supervisor Champagne-The State Workmen's Compensation Board has asked to use this facility November 10th and we are closed. If we agree to allow them to use the building, they've agreed to pay for the custodian at a rate of fifteen dollars an hour, time and a halffor eight hours. Town Board held discussion and agreed to open building for their use as long as the seniors are agreeable to it and have nothing planned for that day. RESOLUTION TO CANCEL MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 521, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will not convene Monday, October 9th, 1995 for their scheduled workshop meeting in observance of the Columbus Day Holiday and therefore the meeting is canceled. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Monahan referred to the town's insurance and questioned whether or not the town wants to open this up to other agents for request for proposal. Town Board held discussion and agreed to open it up for other agents. Councilman Monahan recommended that the agents provide to the town board a list of the companies that they want to use. Town Board agreed to Councilman Monahan's recommendation. Councilman Goedert-Betty, could you just clarify a statement that you made earlier and that statement was that, that department head had no idea that these people were complaining? Councilman Monahan-No, when I talked to him, he was aware of two, he asked me who the third one was. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 522, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn from Regular Session and enter Executive Session to discuss a matter concerning the financial credit history of a particular corporation which also will have matters that relate to attorney/client privilege, a second matter which deals with matters that have been discussed as proposed litigation items concerning zoning enforcement matters which will also be attorney/client privilege and a personnel matter. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN RESOLUTION NO. 523, 95 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and Regular Session of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 2nd day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY