Loading...
1996-11-04 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1996 7:00 P.M. MTG #45 RES. 428-444 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN CONNIE GOEDERT COUNCILMAN CAROL PULVER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Executive Director of Community Development Bill Burns, Comptroller PRESS: G.F. Post Star, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN PULVER Supervisor Champagne opened meeting... CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - JEFFORDS MOBILE HOME APPLICATION 7:02 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll lead right off, if we may with the public hearing for the Jeffords Mobile Home Application. The hearing was held two weeks ago. We left the hearing open so that myself, personally along with other board members could visit the site. We have done that. However I certainly would again invite you to, pro or con, we welcome you to the mic to speak, either for or against this application. It's back to the Jeffords Mobile Home Application. Anyone here to speak, against that application who did not speak previously? That's okay. No first timers, I believe so Neil come right up. MR. NEIL LAVINE-Hi, my name is Neil Lavine. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Why don't you take a seat right there, speak directly into the mic please. MR. LA VINE-I certainly will. I took my hat off this time. I Neil Lavine, turn around, live at 119 Mountain View Lane. I, turn around, I am one of the landowners tight to this parcel of land which is being controversy, or whatever the case may be or just the Town Board, Mrs. Jeffords, turn around, has petitioned the Town Board through the grandfather clause that is in our minutes or not minutes but in the books that one has a right to, turn around, and put another mobile home within eighteen months from what I understand and so forth. I asked my fellow neighbors within, probably within a thousand feet of the parcel of land that's in question at this present time. I bought the land from Charlie Tissinger who is no longer with us so I am physically a part of this so called three and a half, four acres of parcel of land. I have a petition with sixty-eight signatures here, all neighbors that border, across the road and all sides and I've only received one opposition from one party that's within a thousand feet of this parcel ofland. Would the board like to, turn around, review the petition? And I sawall the signatures except for Stan Kosinski, his daughter and his son. I did not see them because for some reason or, they did it, not in my presence. Every other signature that's on here I will verify that I asked them if they were a registered voter within the town, a registered to begin with and they, turn around, this is the place for the town ... and I verify that they told me that they were a registered voter because the last petition I had was not valid because of that verification. I would like to submit this to the panel for review at this time. This is the following petition that folks read with a balance of these and pretty much per sa, everybody that, turn around, that read the petition said that if it was a Tissinger, Beatrice which is still alive or any part of the Tissinger family that wanted a ... on that parcel of land, I would be in here, and they said that they would sign a pro petition, approval but since it is another person outside and so forth, we are a land of laws and evidently by signing these signatures and I will, turn around, get them signed as if, because they were done all in my presence with the exception of Stan Kosinski, the young Kosinski and Keith. I can not, turn around, what I want to say is, a seal of approval or notarized but I will, every other signature was done in my presence so there's no forgery involved. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank you. MR. LA VINE-Thank you very much. While we are reviewing those signatures, anyone else here care to speak, again, for or against this petition? MR. LES SOMMERS-Les Sommers, I live at 59 Mountain View Lane. I don't border the property but I do live on the street and I'm against having any trailers, once they've been removed, put back on. What it does, it devaluates the property of other homeowners. I just remodeled my home, I spent fifty thousand dollars doing it. The neighbor next to me made a two story out of hers, I'm sure she spent seventy or eighty and to put trailers back on this property I think does nothing more then devaluate our property. If you want trailers in the town, I have nothing against them but then have a street where there's strictly trailers and no homes, then there's not devaluation as far as other property is concerned but I'm strictly against it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Yes, sir. MR. RALPH GARAFALO-Hi, I'm Ralph Garafalo, my property borders this piece of property. I spoke before, I just wanted to bring it up again and I just really don't want a trailer bordering my property. You know, it's too nice down in there, it really is. Okay? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MR. GARAFALO-Enough said. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? Either way, we'll listen to either side. MS. TERRY WATERS-I'm Terry Waters, I live on West Mountain Road in the Town of Queensbury. I'm in favor of the home and I think the problem is alot of misconceptions. First of all, it's not a trailer. Second of all, I can't understand how anyone thinks, would think that it would change the value of their property. The home through the mortgage company will be assessed at eighty-five thousand dollars and I think that several of the homes in the area are assessed at less or the same amount and would fit in well within the community. So, and Mrs. Jeffords is following all of the regulations and the codes for the Town of Queensbury so I don't feel there should be any kind of problem with this type of home. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak for or against this application? MR. GLEN GREGORY-Glen Gregory, Town of Queensbury. I do not live in that particular area but mobile homes are being discriminated against. Number one, they are not a trailer. A trailer is something towed behind a car like a camper or such a matter. This is a livable home for people who can not afford a hundred and fifty, two hundred thousand dollar home and I believe that mobile homes should be expanded in the town wherever they want to go within some kind of reason and I don't think West Mountain Road is out of reason for this type of home. Thank you. MR. LAVINE-Can I come up again? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, come on Neil, we'll hear the rest of the story. Re-introduce yourself. MR. LA VINE-Re-introduce myself. I, Neil Lavine, I live at 119 Mountain View Lane. I bought the land, I came out of a trailer park in West Glens Falls, Sloppey's trailer park, if I would have petitioned fifteen years ago for a variance or whatever the case may be for a, to put a trailer on the lot next door to Charlie I would have been denied. I didn't do it so obviously, I believe I would have been denied because there was no provisions, basically when you put a trailer, you have to have everybody within five hundred feet of you, turn around, satisfied. We are again, we are a community, the majority rules. We just can't have one or two individuals come in and say, hey, I want to do this and I want to do that. I mean this basically, the landowner at this time, I can't communicated with them. I was going to buy this land, I was going to deed this land and basically as a result of it, it fell through on me because of my medical reasons. But if I had owned the land, there would have been basically and, which is Bobby Tissinger, was a trustee of his father and his mother and so forth, gave the trailer away so he could sell the land. So if you talk about the intent of the family of Charlie Tissinger, he was just like my mother and father to me since I lost them fifteen, in 1981. I communicated with hirn. This is what, I bought his car, this is what he want, he did not want a complete stranger come moving in next door. That's all he could afford and this is what the grandfather clause says and what the intent of the grandfather, we must make take care of our weak but basically we've got to close this chapter on this. We can not have a single one. If you turn around and grant her a, turn around, a permit and so forth, we'll be back down, the next parcel of land, it's not a trailer. You can not within a thousand feet, there's not another trailer in there. So you can't say this is, we can put trailers wherever you want, the majority of the people around, ninety-nine, with the exception of this parcel ofland which was back in 1956, turn around, there was no rules and regulations at that particular time. He was, this is why we got grandfather clauses. Today, we're 1996. We, turn around, we want to put an end. Bobby, turn around, and says he wants to sell the land, he can't be discriminating, he can't tell and he's already told Mrs. Jeffords that she wouldn't do it, off the record. She would never be able to and this is the main reason why he gave the trailer away. The trailer was valuable, he gave it to Morse Combs because he didn't want another, that trailer left there and he didn't sell the land with the trailer on. So, once removed, it should have been basically, he has a lean against because his mother is in a nursing home and he must satisfy the community ... so I will leave it at that end and obviously I think I'm coming from a pretty, when I have sixty-eight people that within a thousand feet or less or a little bit more then that, but the majority and probably ninety percent of them were within a thousand feet of this parcel of land. That's majority, that's not, thank you very much for taking my time. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Okay, unless there's anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. GEORGE DRELLOS-George Drellos, 27 Fox Hollow Lane. I'd like to ask Mr. Martin, what's the law pertaining to this? If you can remove a home off a lot, how long do you have, no matter who owns it to put a new one on, a mobile home? Isn't there a law stating that no matter where the mobile home is in the town? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well if it's outside ofa mobile home overlay zone which this is, then trailers are not allowed, or mobile homes I should say, are not allowed according to zoning. But in this case if you have a mobile home that was placed at the site predating zoning which again is the case here, then that mobile home is obviously allowed to stay there and be maintained. Should the mobile home be taken off the site then there's a period of eighteen months at which time, a trailer could be placed back there according to zoning. However the extra step in this case is, you still need permission from this board to replace a mobile home there. So, in terms of the zoning aspect it's for eighteen months. If it were beyond eighteen months, then it would need a use variance as well. MR. DRELLOS-No matter who owns the lot? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's not a matter of the ownership. MR. DRELLOS-So they're within the zone or the law to put this mobile home back on there? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-In terms of zoning, this is a grandfather use that has a window of extension, so to speak for eighteen months. MR. DRELLOS- Then really, there's no problem, the board should give them this. I mean EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well that's up to, there's a different standard the board has to apply for what's being sought after here. In terms of zoning, it is, the word has been, grandfathered, that was the case. MR. DRELLOS-It's been in other parts of the town, I know it has. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, there are instances where it's been done. But there's a different set of criteria other then zoning that this board has to address for placement of a home outside of a mobile home overlay zone. MR. DRELLOS-Have they denied any? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think there's been instances where they've been denied. MR. DRELLOS-Okay, I was just curious on the law, that's all. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It depends on how it meets the criteria. MR. DRELLOS-Okay, thanks. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you George. Anyone else? Okay, we'll, I'm sorry. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK CAROLINE BARBER-I have a letter to read into the record. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Please do. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following letter into the record: Dear Mr. Champagne, It is my understanding that there will be a meeting at the Queensbury Town Hall on Monday, November 4th and one of the items to be discussed will be whether or not to grant permission to Mrs. Elaine Jeffords to put a double wide home on a lot she is hoping to purchase on Mountain View Lane owned by Tissinger. I will be unable to be at this meeting due to a previous commitment but I would like to go on record as being in full agreement with her being allowed to place a double wide on this lot. I have lived at my present address since July 1966 and both my husband and I tried to maintain a home that would be an asset to the neighborhood and I feel we have done this. Since my husband's death in 1989 I have tried to continue on in that respect and I do feel my home is as well maintained as any in the neighborhood. With this thought in mind, I would not be happy to have anyone move into the neighborhood that would decrease the sale value of my home. When I learned that Mrs. Jeffords was planning to place a double wide on that lot, I was very happy as I know she will maintain a home comparable to the rest of the area. I have nothing against a double wide being placed on that lot as it will be placed on a slab and will not be able to be moved. As far as I'm concerned, I see no difference in a double wide that is permanently placed, or a modular home. They can both be made into a very attractive place. I am hoping she will be granted permission to go ahead with her plans. Respectfully, Dorcas Baker. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-She lives at 89 Mountain View Lane. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you Caroline. Is that it? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-That's it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, back to the board. I guess I would be interested in hearing comments or COUNCILMAN TURNER-I guess I have a problem with Mr. Lavine's statement he made in reference to the mobile home being placed there, that he would consider placing a mobile home there if the person that has the application in front of us, was not the presenter. I think I'd like feed back from that, Mr. Lavine as to that remark. MR. LAVINE-Would you repeat that again, sir? COUNCILMAN TURNER-You stated that you would be for a mobile home there if it wasn't Mrs. Jeffords. MR. LA VINE-I stated, was saying is people, turn around, DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Could you come up to the microphone please? MR. LAVINE-Yea, we ought to get that on record, Neil, please? MR. LAVINE-As individuals, I, Neil Lavine again at 119 Mountain View Lane, turn around, the individuals expressed, they read this, they signed that petition. They also said they would not, a majority said they would not sign it if it was a Tissinger because basically, this is the application, they said, approach of the grandfather clause and this is why the grandfather clause is in there as far as I, turn around, interpreted and they specifically said that to me that if it was anything, Charlie Tissinger and Beatrice whose in a nursing home right now, if she would improve and she needed another mobile home back in there, they would allow her to come back to that property. In other words, it is the homestead of the Tissingers. There's been two, three generations that have been raised there and so forth and they objected, they would not, turn around, sign a petition against any of the Tissingers. And again, Charlie bought the land back in the fifties. He was a good neighbor, it was nothing, he was matter off act, I think he was one of your fire marshals or assistant fire marshals for all the years and so forth. You couldn't find a better man, a more and so forth and our community said the same thing. Charlie was quiet, Charlie was everything else and basically as long as he was alive and his family, his wife is still alive so that's what we're relating. If she needed a home, they would allow that but they're not for the idea of a stranger coming in and, turn around, putting a mobile home, trying to get technically, technicality within the law. As far as they were concerned which they reflected to me, they felt that the grandfather clause protected the Tissingers, didn't protect everybody else when it was originally put into the books. Am I clear at this or is there any other questions you'd like to ask? COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think what the law says is, you can put a mobile home back there in eighteen months, within eighteen months. It doesn't say who it has to be, that it has to be an owner occupied or anything, it just says you can put a mobile home back there. MR. LA VINE-You're absolutely right and they reflected their views on this paper and they said they would not sign this paper to me in general terms if it meant that Mrs. Beatrice Tissinger needed a home. And that's, she could come back within the eighteen months and asked, turn around, will just say she's in the nursing home in Saratoga at this time and everyone of them said, probably out of that sixty-eight signatures, I probably have fifty signatures saying that the Tissingers could put, Mrs. Tissinger, she's still alive, let's not bury her. She's a nursing home, she's senile and so forth, she's eating up this property, whatever the case may be, it's somewhere around fifty thousand dollars. This is why the land has to be sold. But we, turn around, let's not bury her, let's, turn around, put everything in context. This land should be sold. Bobby gave the trailer away, he didn't want it, the trailer on it, he made a mistake by not putting it in his niece but there was three existing lots there and that's what it is. They're reshuffling it and so forth but I, turn around, would have been petitioning it differently. If I had owned the land, I would have, turn around, would have had three or four lots, whatever would have been allowed and they would have been in the deed, they would be no mobile home on that and this is the intent of Mrs. Charlie. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank's Neil. Now do we have anyone else for or against? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I have some comments, Fred. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's, I have one more from the public here, Connie. MR. JOHN WELLS-My name is John Wells, I live in Queensbury. The only thing I know of this whole process is what I've heard tonight. The debate seems to be over what is a mobile home and I just heard it's a double wide mobile home. So does anybody know what the square footage of that home would be. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's twenty-four by COUNCILMAN TURNER-Nine hundred and forty-four square feet. MR. WELLS-That's the same as SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's twenty-four by forty-four, isn't that the COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well that's the outside, they give SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well outside. MR. WELLS-So it's approximately a thousand square feet? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In the brochure it says nine hundred and thirty-four square feet, that's the inside. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Total area, inside. MR. WELLS-And the value, the assessed value of the home was eighty-five thousand dollars. I have a home that's on a basement, stick built that's valued at the same amount, has the same square footage. The only difference between the mobile home, or the double wide mobile home and a modular that comes in and sits on the same slab, is a frame it's built on. The mobile home will be built on a steel frame, it's still out of two by six construction, the same insulation factor, the modular home will come in on a truck in two parts, the same as the mobile home would be and assembled in the same way except it won't have a steel frame. I don't understand what the problem is. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thank's John. Now, Connie. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I've done some research in reference to this matter in the last couple of weeks. Number one, I'm familiar with the area and the trailer that was taken off that property was exactly that, was a trailer. In looking at the plans for Mrs. Jeffords request here, this is a three bedroom ranch with two bathrooms and you're not talking the same thing here. If it's an eighteen month thing, or law, zoning that she's required to follow and she's followed all of those steps, she fits into that neighborhood by what I've seen just as well, maybe in some cases, a little bit better and I think that the structure that's being replaced there is better then what was taken off of there which is another question in that zoning of the eighteen month and I would only encourage to get to know Mrs. Jeffords. We can't compare her to Mr. Tissinger or Mrs. Tissinger, she's probably just as nice as they are and you might be saying the same thing twenty years down the road for Mrs. Jeffords. This is a three bedroom ranch with two bathrooms. This is not the trailer that was taken off that piece of property. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else from the board care to speak? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, I have a few comments. I'm looking at the Master Plan for Queensbury that was done in 1988. Mrs. Jeffords, I'm not sure if you are a so called senior citizen yet or if you will be in a few years. But just let me read you some of the conclusions that they came to at that time. Senior Citizens historically live in single or two person households and the rise in persons in this age group will create a demand for more Senior Citizen Housing choices. Alternative housing choices should be identified and pursued in order to meet the demand for adequate and affordable housing. Goals, provide for affordable housing, provide for Senior Citizen Housing. Now, you know, I'm looking at the plan of Mrs. Jeffords mobile home. I don't see any difference in this then any single family home I might see any place in Queensbury in a like area. The square footage is more then what we require in this town for a single family residence. One end of her end of it will, of this mobile home, frankly is wider then my end of my house that faces the road. I think, you know people are getting very perturbed, they're getting perturbed over a name, semantics. To me, this is nothing more or less then a single family home. It's another choice for people in this town and I'm getting a little perturbed, annoyed and frankly disgusted when I hear people sit there and say there's only room in this town for people in certain social and economic categories. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's see, I haven't heard from this young lady here. MARTHA HAVENS-I'm Martha Havens, I live at 99 Mountain View Lane which is next door to the property being discussed. I do not know Mrs. Jeffords, I have nothing against Mrs. Jeffords. She would probably be a lovely neighbor. I would try to be a good neighbor to her. I've known Mr. Champagne and Mrs. Monahan for many years and I believe I always treated them fairly. I have nothing against any social, economics problems that anyone believes we have with our neighbors. The only concern that I have at this point is with the assessment of my property and the property of my neighbor and I very much resent Mrs. Monahan's comments. I have never said one word against Mrs. Jeffords. I have nothing against Mrs. Jeffords living in a mobile home. We have lived on that property for twelve years. The trailer that Mr. Tissinger resided in was there when we purchased the property. The trailer was taken away. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Ma'am, excuse me, MS. HA VENS-Maybe you have eighteen months under the law to request a replacement. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-You built your house with the trailer already there? MS. HAVENS-No, we purchased it. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-You purchased your home with the trailer there? MS. HAVENS-Right, right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Go ahead. MS. HA VENS-And might add that the lady who was selling the house at the time we bought it, dropped her price twenty thousand dollars because she had not been able to sell her property next door to a trailer. Now, my place is assessed for eighty-three thousand six hundred as of 1993 because I took the time to look that figure up before I came tonight. Now, I don't understand why everyone on that street should have to keep a high assessment with a mobile home, a trailer, whatever you want to call it. It's a home but it is not a modular home, as a mobile home which strictly under the Queensbury Zoning Laws as you said, for many, many years have been, supposed to be in mobile home parks. So, go ahead and let the mobile home in but I will request a reduction on my assessment and I will be extremely surprised if everyone else on the street doesn't do the same thing. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? MR. GARAFALO-Ralph Garafalo. I really appreciate her liberal views and your assessment of how homes are built. I've been in the building end of business for a long time, I've seen alot of these mobile homes and to say they're equivalent to a house, not even close. Okay? Not even close and as far as this poor lady here saying that we want to keep people down in the neighborhood and I think it's more of a reflection that we want to keep our neighborhood looking pretty decent. You may feel that we want to put, you know homes in that, you know, don't match the area and it should be okay because basically your attitude counts and all the fifty people, sixty people that live in the neighborhood really doesn't. Okay, I appreciate that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What you're really saying, if you don't make a certain income MR. GARAF ALO- What I'm saying Ma'am is COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There's no place for you in Queensbury. MR. GARAF ALO-I don't believe anybody said income here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But that's what you're intimating. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Wait, I'm going to MR. GARAFALO-No, hold on a second here. What does income got to do with the fact that SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You're going to keep it down, sir. MR. GARAFALO-Alright, I'm sorry. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm sorry. MR. GARAFALO-Alright, nobody said anything about income. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because that's it, that's the kind of housing MR. GARAF ALO-I never once said anything about the lady's income. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's a type of housing that some people with certain incomes can afford. MR. GARAF ALO- What I'm saying Ma'am is, you got fifty some odd people who live on the street that do not wish for it. Okay, nobody picked on the lady because of what she makes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We have that information, Mr. Garafalo. MR. GARAFALO-Alright? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you very much. MR. GARAF ALO- Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else on the board care to speak? All set. Let's vote. TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER-Did you close your public hearing? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:32 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT FOR ELAINE JEFFORDS RESOLUTION NO. 428, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury regulates mobile homes outside of mobile home parks pursuant to ~ 113 -12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Elaine Jeffords has filed an application for a "Mobile Home Outside a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit, in accordance with said ~113-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to locate a mobile home at property situated west of Whippoorwill Road on Mountain View Lane, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on October 21, 1996 with regard to the aforesaid permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the issuance ofa revocable permit in accordance with the terms and provisions of ~113-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21st day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF ZONE FOR HARRIS, TOOMEY, ZVERBLIS & OUDEKERK NOTICE SHOWN 7:33 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, we'll open the public hearing, I guess we're ready for that, a change of zone for the Harris, Toomey, Zverblis & Oudekerk properties. The way the application reads here is to provide for one acre zoning for approximately two hundred and twenty acres, is that about right, for property located on Sunnyside Road and bordering Bay Road, going from a three acre zone to an one acre zone. Okay, back to, I guess, do we have someone here that's interested in presenting? Why don't we get the presentation first. I guess, Tom, are you prepared for that? And then we'll have some input. I didn't take you by surprise, did I? MR. MARK LEV ACK-Good evening Mr. Supervisor, members of the board, my name is Mark Levack and I'm here to present an application for an amendment to the zoning map. Four properties that we have before you this evening, properties owners are seeking rezoning consist of approximately two hundred and twenty-five acres and it's located on Sunnyside Road and Bay Road. I have some aerial photographs from a few different vantage points and we also have some street scape photographs that might help to really illustrate the condition of this property, the location of the property, the amount of property that's cleared and the amount of property that's forested. With us here this evening, we have the four property owners. Mr. Ronald and Shirley Harris, Mr. Howard and Barbara Toomey, Mr. Frank Zverblis and Betty Zverblis and then Mr. Albert Oudekerk and Mrs. Eleanor Oudekerk. We believe that this property is more adequately zoned SRIA due to the zoning densities of the surrounding properties. You have Stonegate Subdivision, you have Hiland Park, Ledgeview, the Hilands, Sherwood Acres, Colonial Court, Rockwell Road, Lake Sunnyside, among others. We have approval to date from the Town Planning Board, that was an unanimous approval for the request for a zone change to one acre. We have a majority approval from the County Planning Department for the request of a zone change to one acre. We have had discussions with the Queensbury Comprehensive Landuse Advisory Committee and we believe, although we have nothing written from them, that we were very well received and we feel we have their support. Lastly, we've had many conversations with the Town Planning Department among other people and feel that we can cooperatively as community seek this rezoning here this evening to accomplish a win, win scenario for everybody involved. Here to support this rezoning this evening, I have Mike O'Connor to address any legal concerns, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering to address any engineering concerns, Charlie Maine to address soil studies and I'd just like to leave you with one thought before we proceed that it's important to note that there are no plans to subdivide this property, this whole two hundred and twenty-five acres. Currently, there is only one property owner that has his property for sale and that's Ron and Shirley Harris and that would be this fifty acre parcel right here. We felt that the way to address this was not to spot zone this one property but to seek a rezoning request on the two hundred and fifty acres that was, prior to 1988 zoned three-quarter acre zoning. And we want you to keep in mind that these property owners are long standing life residents of the Town of Queensbury. This property has been in their family for a hundred and twenty- five years and they are extremely concerned of maintaining the rural character and the rural integrity of this section of Queensbury and we believe that the proposal that we're going to submit this evening can show that, that can be done. So, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Tom Nace. MR. TOM NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace of Nace Engineering. For the purposes of looking at this rezoning issue from an environmental standpoint, we have laid out a ... where cookie cutter subdivision, very schematic of the entire four parcels. That has resulted in approximately ninety-two, ninety-one, one acre lots that could be developed once you take into consideration the, some of the site constraints being a little bit of topography but mostly soils in the lower southern portion of the property which exhibit high groundwater characteristics. We went on site to do some soil studies. We, on the Harris property went in and dug some deep test pits to determine where the high groundwater was. Those were done in the presence of Charlie Maine and myself. I went back personally and did percolation tests in those same areas and then Charlie Maine went throughout the two hundred and twenty-five acres with the soil conservation soils map that had been done previously for this, for Warren County and doing auger test, shallow hand auger tests throughout that two hundred and twenty-five acres, Charlie then verified that the soils mapping is, in general, fairly accurate. There were a couple of areas that I've noted in the soils report to you where the soils study showed the actual soils, showed the soils to be not quite as good what Charlie found the actual soils there to be but in general our conclusion is that about seventy-five percent of the property has soils that are acceptable for one acre parcels or actually even a little less than one acre parcels using on-site septic and on-site wells for water supply. There are, like I said before, toward the southern portion of the site, some soils which have high groundwater characteristics but those are also inter-mixed with high hununocks in the southern area of better upland soils which are suitable. So, even within that southern portion there are probably homesites that you could find if you wanted to develop very large, you know, five or ten acre lots with long driveways to get to them. It's just not suitable for cookie cutter, one acre lot development. If you have any COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Mr. Nace, could you, what was the percentage? MR. NACE-Approximately twenty-five percent of the area has soils that are constraining of development as one acre, full one acre subdivision. That's just approximate. You have, I believe a soils a report that shows those particular areas delineated. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The way it reads here is, well drained is twenty-five percent, poorly drained is twenty-five percent and moderately well drained would be fifty percent. Now, we're talking two hundred and twenty-five acres, I guess is the number I have here, is that pretty much the exact count? MR. NACE-That's the total property. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And you're saying that of that two hundred and twenty-five acres, we can get ninety-one, one acre lots somewhere? MR. NACE-That's a very schematic, very broad brush, first cut. In fact that, quite frankly was done before we had all of the on-site soils work so I noticed looking back at it there are some areas there that you might be able to get a few more lots in. But that's in the right ball park, it's certainly in the realm of ninety to a hundred and twenty, a hundred and thirty lots at the most. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I guess I call on Mr. Maine in reviewing COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, could you wait just a minute please? Tom, you say ninety-one sites and yet you say three quarters of the land is acceptable for development and three quarters of the land comes out to quite a bit more then ninety-one sites. I realize you've got to take out for roads and things like that. MR. NACE-Well, you also have, you have four different property owners here, okay. So there are four different parcels and when you start looking at how those individual parcels can be broken up but still tied together in the long run. Okay, we tried to look as I think it would have to be done, in taking each parcel and developing it as a single development but yet tieing all of the developments together so that eventually they work on a combined road system. Okay, but when you do that, because of the geometry of the parcels, you lose a particular percentage to roads, you lose some to just the overall geometry that you can't get exactly one acre lots if you run a road where it has to go because of the geometry of the property. Then your lots maybe one and a half acre, they maybe one and a quarter acres. There's also, if a part of that land, there's some that we know that the owners have said, they don't want it developed. Okay, they want to keep in the family. The Berry Farm, there's a barn up on Bay Road that the owners say, we don't think, if we develop our land, we want to take that out. So, we've taken that into consideration too. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, but that doesn't quite tie in with rezoning for one acre. I mean, you know, we don't know that, we don't have any guarantee that that's going to happen. So, I'm having a little hard time putting those numbers together. MR. NACE-Well, I think the main considerations are the fact that you do take out for roads and the geometry of the existing property lines and ownership also serve constraints to make the lots larger. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And Jim, before we leave this, unless I couldn't find it in our packet, I didn't see the results of the perk tests. I saw, you know the soil borings but I didn't see the perk test results. MR. NACE-There in the text, okay, they COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I still didn't see it, not soil by soil. Not test by test, I mean. MR. NACE-Oh okay, the test by test is not in there. The results EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, I didn't find that either. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You drew your conclusions but I didn't see the actual test results, pit by pit. MR. NACE-I have those in my file. The test results varied from a little over five minutes, I think five minutes and ten seconds to about nine minutes and something, I don't remember, nine minutes and some odd seconds. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Betty, I'd like to get back to my question to Mr. Maine. I understand we have the test pits throughout the Harris property. I think we did nine different test pits there, now in your observations in your borings that you took on the other three parcels, could you tell me a little bit more about how that process was undertaken? And also, I notice on here evidently these are soils, these are governmental soils identifiers and to be honest with you, I don't fully understand what that really means, especially, the b. You have HUB and ELB. What does that b represent? MR. CHARLES MAINE-What the, it would have been alot easier if they used the soil name but what they did was assign letters to thern. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It would have been easier for me too. MR. MAINE-Basically, they did try to use like the old A, B, a soil we call Oakville, it's a sandy soil. So, they used the 0, A, B, C, as kind of a guide to clue you on, on being an Oakville and the B is more or less the slope of the soil. The last symbol is slope of the soil. The B more stands, the slope of that soils is around three to eight percent slope. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. So, the B would be the three to eight percent average? MR. MAINE-Right, fairly flat soil. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, Charlie everything on the other three properties match up with everything that's on, I mean, you identified this map, this was the soils map? MR. MAINE-Basically, I took the soils map with me and more or less, walked around checking those boundaries out and so forth, Fred. Actually, alot of the places I found the soils to be better then what they had mapped on there. For instance, the HUB is more or less a Hudson soil we call that which is sands over clay material and actually it's more like the Oakville soils, a larger portion of it then the clay soils. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, but what I gather from the Harris property investigation, obviously your test results here show certain depths of soils, the clay and the silt and what have you, we don't have that for the other three properties or do we? MR. MAINE-No, I didn't do a deep test pits but basically what you can do is you more or less take your Warren County Soils Survey Manual and they'll have a description there. In other words, you take OAB and you have a description of what that soil is. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Alright, that answers my question. MR. NACE-I think also to address that, we covered with the deep test pits on the Harris property, we covered most of the soil designations or classifications that occur throughout the four parcels. Okay, so once Charlie was able to go through the other four parcels and verify that, if it says on the map that's Oakville soils, it's really Oakville, the conditions are similar enough that our deep tests in the Oakville classification on the Harris property would also apply to the property next door. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Charlie, I noticed on the Harris property on the boring 7,8, and 9, you ran into mottling at different depths. Because of the fact that, that gave us some trouble in this town in a certain subdivision that shall be nameless, I'm wondering what your opinion would be about running into that on the other three pieces of property because we don't really have anything to go by? MR. MAINE-There is some areas where you would run into that on the other parcels but it's basically on, for instance if you take the unit, SH, that soil means, that areas you will notice is excluded from COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No but you found this before on the soil that was the HUB, if you look at your test pit 7, 8, and 9, it wasn't in the SH soil. MR. MAINE-Basically, you'll notice there, they are fairly close to that boundary, Betty. So, you quite often get the intermixing or interlaping from one soil boundary to another on those boundaries, Betty. So, there more or less treated as an inclusion then, in those units. When you look at any of these soil symbols, they're not really a pure unit as such. You have inclusions of other soils mixed in with them. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I realize that, it's the mottling that, you know, I'm trying to identify where that might be showing up on the other soils where it could show that, at sometimes the water table has been high in that area. MR. NACE-What you don't have the benefit of on this map is also the topography, okay. That was toward the end of the field, let me show you on the aerial photo. (referred to photos) That was done right toward the interface of the wood line here on the Harris property and the topography was very low in the middle, okay, because the field drainage comes down through the middle and eventually down into this little stream channel. It was a little bit higher on this side, and a little bit higher yet over on this side and I think that's also reflected if you look in the borings or in the test pits, at the depth we ran into mottling at. Okay, but that, the middle one where the mottling was very high was down at a very low elevation and it actually, that was below where on our schematic where we laid out how you might develop the properties, that was well beyond where we ended our road and down toward the back of the lots that we would say that would viable on the Harris property. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Am I looking, the top of that which you're pointing to now, I'm looking north? MR. NACE- That's looking north, Bay Road is here, Sunnyside Road is just off the photograph up about here. This is the Zverblis property, Harris, I'm not sure which one is next. Toomey? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oudekerk. MR. NACE-Oudekerk and Toomey, I guess is over in the corner. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So Tom, looking at the other pieces of property where we don't have the benefit of those test pits being dug, where else do you think you might run into this mottling? MR. NACE-Well, okay, look at the back of this property. Here is the property line here, the drainage from the Harris was coming down through here and down this channel. The drainage for these back fields in the Zverblis property, comes through here but there's an area of higher ground back in here which I doubt that you would run into it. You would run into obviously along this drainage channel and as you come out of the drainage channel, you would come out of it. Down in here, the same thing. You'll see there's a little pond that's been developed, that little farm pond that's been dug back in the back of this property. As you get back towards the back of this, you would probably also run into a little higher groundwater mottling. But even in the back of the Harris property, which you get away from the drainage channels, there are a hununocks of better soils where you would not have the high groundwater. But those, those are things we, we did our test pits to find out really what the soil classifications indicated, okay and to find out specifically in this general area how those soils looked and then once we had that, Charlie was able to do the shallower test pits, shallower auger holes to look at the soil classification and the delineation on the rest of the entire property. It's not like we didn't look at the soils on these other sites. We did, okay and you would certainly, when it came down to submit a subdivision plan for any of these parcels, you would go in and do your test pits, you would do your site specific percolation tests. All that we're looking at here is to see whether or not the property looks to be developable and usable for on-site septic for one acre lots and that's the reason we structured our soil testing the way we did. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When you picked out the number of sites that you did, approximately ninety-one, did you stay away from that types of areas and did you allow for the natural drainage patterns that are on that land without interfering with those natural drainage patterns and the swales that are there? MR. NACE-Yes, I believe we did. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because, you know they've accumulated a long time over long periods of farming and the farmers kind of know where the water goes. MR. NACE-Well and that's, you know, if you look at the land, farmers know where it's wet. They haven't, those areas where they haven't cultivated and haven't farmed, are generally the wetter areas of the land and that's exactly what this shows. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But they also, up in other areas don't disturb the drainage pattern and that's why, if you have followed the same concept when you did your layout. MR. NACE- Y es we did. This is, I apologize, this is a very rough sketch but here is generally what we looked at. This is the Harris, or the Zverblis property, this is the Harris property and this Oudekerk and you can look at what we sketched out was that we generally ran our roads north to south and then linked them together across the middle of the properties back out to Bay Road. Generally the drainage with the exception of a little bit up here that runs off to the east, generally the drainage is to the south and to the southwest and eventually follows that stream channel which is back around here and down eventually out to Halfway Brook. But you can see right here, we left that bottom portion totally out of our road system and said that it would probably develop as maybe individual lots. This lot is probably twenty, a little better then twenty acres but that's, this is a first cut, very rough sketch just for environmental analysis to say what the potential impact of this rezoning might be. MR. LEV ACK-I also think it's important to point out that, this is a rezoning request here this evening, it's not a subdivision request and we're here to ask for this one acre zoning because of the merits that we described earlier. Also, if, in the future any of this property is to be subdivided that a site plan or a subdivision application would be presented to the Town Planning Department and there are current codes in place, 138-22F that basically takes out of area calculation, the wetland that this, we estimate this twenty- five percent that is non-developable, would automatically be taken out of the equation to calculate the density. Also too, the town code does have provisions to stop ... transition roads so that they would transition from one property logically to the next property. So, the town process is a nice process in that it's a multi tiered stepped process that the protects the area property owners and the current property owners, every step of the way. So, the reason why we're here this evening is the one acre zoning, not to got into subdivision planning here. The town already has though provisions cared for. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, do have any other questions? Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, it's open public hearing and we're anxious to hear from those folks that would like to have some input here. Ron, would you care to? Oh, I've got two Rons coming up. Go ahead Mr. Harris, you be first. MR. RON HARRIS-I'm Ron Harris and I live at 962 Bay Road and I'm one of the property owners that have our properties under consideration for rezoning from three acre to one acre residential. This property has been in my family for over a hundred and twenty-five years and unfortunately I can no longer afford to keep this property and I put it on the market seven years ago but have been unable to sell it for, because of the three acre zoning. There has been some concern from our neighbors who oppose the rezoning and they're concerned about losing the nice view that they have but my property is the only one for sale and my property, most of them have no view or very little view of my property and when the property is developed, the hedgerows will stay and the wetlands will be preserved. I mean that has to be done and currently my property is posted so that no one is allowed on the property. However, once the, a development road is put in, that no longer will be in effect. Anyone would be able to walk down the road and enjoy the beauty of the property, down in the lower fields down there. This, and there's also some concern about the drainage which has been answered here by Tom Nace and because it's, seventy-five percent of the property is concerned moderately to well drained. And there's been concern for the quality of water by some residents and the depth of the wells and but, I feel the quality of water is excellent and well depth, that can vary dramatically within a few yards. My well is a hundred and fifty feet deep and I'm right down on the same level as the wells in Stonegate and I'm not sure how deep they are. And then there's, of course some concern about traffic and as far as this development on my property is concerned there would be zero, nearly zero impact on Sunnyside Road because there would be no access to Sunnyside Road from it. Most of the traffic would be, the increase in traffic would on Bay Road will come from outside of the areas because with the approximately seventeen to twenty homes that might be developed on my piece of property wouldn't generate that much more traffic and they would not all be on the road at the same time, obviously. Then someone said at the Planning Board meeting that Sunnyside Road is a very dangerous road and the intersection of Bay and Sunnyside is a very dangerous intersection. My personal opinion is that, I don't think you'll find a dangerous road or intersection in the Queensbury but you will find dangerous drivers and people who want stop for stop signs are people who don't use good judgement when they pull out into traffic and people who don't use directionals properly and also the people who do not obey the speed limits. Sunnyside Road is a very winding road but if you observe the speed limit, it's a very safe road in my estimation. I've traveled it for over, well over fifty years I've traveled that road. So, but most people don't like change but everything is in the constant mode to change and if it weren't then everything would remain static and that would not be good either. So, I'm just asking the Town Board to approve our zoning request. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you, Ron. The other Ron. MR. RON MONTESI-Thank you board members, Fred. I guess by way of an apology I probably am one of the members of the Town Board that rezoned Mr. Harris and the rest of the properties of the three acres back, maybe 1988, 1987. That was a pretty courageous thing to do. We were in a fierce building mode, we were measuring building permits in our town by the hundredths yearly and there was a lot of concern by folks that our town is getting over developed. We didn't have a plan, or a good master plan and there was alot of fear that we were losing our open spaces. It took a good deal of courage to put a moratorium in affect. I think Betty served on that board with me and we did it for a year and ended up being a nineteen month moratoriurn. Believe me, the contractors, the trades were very angry with us. We were literally slowing down, and stopping construction in our town but we felt a strong need to do that. The prevailing issue, any time we asked a question of anybody was, maintain the open spaces, maintain the open character of our town. Well, we might have gone too far on this particular parcel of land, two hundred, two hundred and fifty acres we went from three quarters of an acre to three acres and I have to tell you, today, I mow an acre of grass at my house and it's more then sufficient. I'm not sure what kind of a home we can build on a three acre parcel. Some of the acre parcels at Hiland have had some difficulty selling it in the price range that they are, I'm not sure what three acres would draw but in my opinion, I didn't go through a whole scenario of what the land could hold or couldn't hold when we went to three acres, we just felt there was a strong need to preserve some open spaces and that was sort of unselfish on my part as a member of that because I didn't buy the land, I didn't pay taxes on it and I was putting a burden on the people that did. So, I feel strongly that this board should look at this rezoning. I think an acre is more then sufficient. We have a number of safe guards with our SEQRA laws and our environmental laws to in any way protect, in all ways protect what we have on that property and to those folks that say, that's a beautiful piece of land and I get up in the morning and I look out and I can see the deer and the fox and everything, you ought to be petitioning the Town Board to buy that land and maintain it as a park. It just can't happen, we can't maintain all of those things. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you, Ron. Okay, anyone else from the audience care to speak for or against this application? Yes. MRS. ELEANOR OUDEKERK-Good Evening, I'm Eleanor Oudekerk, I live at 936 Bay Road and I'm one of the four property owners requesting the rezoning of our contiguous properties from three acres to one acre. For the record, my husband and I are not developers. We have no project or plans in the works at the current time for our property and we're not working with anyone else on this request except my brother and his wife, our neighbors Mr. Zverblis and Mr. and Mrs. Toomey. Each of us owns our respective properties today because our forbears passed it on to us with each succeeding generation but circumstances do change over time and many of us who hold property may some day have to make decisions about it. Clearly, that's happened to one of us already. We think it makes sense for the Town Board to consider rezoning this entire section to conform to the surrounding properties and to do it now before becomes necessary to have to approach it in a piece meal fashion. We do not think rezoning to one acre in this section is unreasonable for the following reasons, probably most of these you've heard before. All of the property surrounding this block of land permits housing on one acre or less. To the south is Hiland Park, zoned as a PUD. To the east is a parcel, formally part of Hiland and still zoned as a PUD where any residence can be built on one acre or less. To the north are at least twelve properties, all on three quarter acres or less. To the west side of Bay Road is zoned single family one acre and there are also some multi family parcels there. Of properties in Stone gate, many of them are three quarters acre or less and I did note there were some just over an acre. So, three acre zoning is certainly not consistent with the surrounding properties all around us. This section contains few of the distinguishing features that do make sense in RR3 zones in other parts of town. The terrain is not mountainous, steeply sloped, deeply gullied, there are no lakes, no babbling brooks on the property. Our particular parcels as has been noted are on flat, rolling lands that are most suitable for development and the low lying wetlands could easily be protected and hedgerows be preserved through the site plan review process. There are concerns about increased density, reducing value of surrounding housing but this must be unfounded, can clearly be shown that building a brand new house on a larger plot land reduces the value of his neighbor. There are concerns that Queensbury already has enough houses for sale and therefore doesn't need any new ones. That's a bit like saying to all the car dealers, you can't buy a new car until all the old ones are sold. The analogy is simplistic but it points out an argument that isn't realistic. Used ones probably aren't sold for very good reasons and people want new ones for reasons just as valid. There are concerns about detrimental affects on additional septic tanks and wells. I can only site from our personal experience of operating a Bed and Breakfast that the size of the septic tank and the leach field that was required of us, has held up for almost seven years with never a failure even during the heaviest use in the summer and the rainiest of seasons. And isn't this what the site plan review is all about, addressing these concerns about each and every project with respect to existing soil characteristics and water tables. And the concerns about increasing traffic which my brother mentioned, there is increasing traffic, it's all over the place. It goes to the lake, to Glens Falls, to Quaker Road, it comes from 149, Route 9, 9L, but in the specific parcel that he wants to develop, they're not talking about adding truck traffic or tractor trailers or log trucks through this area. This is traffic through residential development and we do not dismiss these concerns at all but by the same token, the addition of several new homes in the area from the only project planned will hardly be the sole contribution to increased traffic in the entire area. In sununary, we urge you to consider rezoning this entire block of land from RR3 to SRI to be consistent with all the other development in the area relying on the existing site plan review process to guarantee that any proposed project is carried out suitably and sensitively for the area. I urge you to consider making these decisions that show Queensbury's beauty is more then skin deep but it also has a heart and soul when it comes to property owners with reasonable requests. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you, Eleanor. Well said. Okay, anyone else care to speak for or against this application to rezone the properties? Yes, sir. MR. MARSHAL SEELEY-Good evening. Members of the board, I'd like to say first, I don't have any SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess we need your name first, okay, just for the record. MR. SEELEY-Oh, Marshal Seeley. I'm sorry, I just assume everyone knows me. I should say I don't have any official standing because I'm a resident of Kingsbury. However, my daughter and her husband bought the lot which is actually the second lot north of Moon Hill Road on the west side of Bay Road, they bought an acre there and the lot between the house and the corner is an acre. In 1964 my wife and I bought a lot from Stan Harris and his wife. We built a house which is still the second house south of the Sunnyside corner on the east side of Bay Road. I guess I can beat Harris a little although I haven't lived on the property that many years but my family has been here just over two hundred years. I know the area a little bit. Before we built the house on Bay Road I was working on Haviland Road where the Restaurant is now and living there for a few years. I'm speaking against primarily out of my thoughts and also my daughter's concerns, they're in Florida now and they've leased their home for a period of time. She's concerned about taxes and feels that the reduction to one acre sites would allow additional housing and broaden the tax base. When I bought, or when my wife and I bought our lot, we paid a thousand dollars for our lot, just slightly over an acre if I remember right, very close to an acre. Probably lots now would go for a little bit more then that. Enough more so that if you go to three acre lots, people getting started, wanting to start a family and have their own home might not even be able to afford the lots, say nothing of being able to put a house on it that would be appropriate to such a lot. I think if the lots are one acre size, you can get very nice housing, have plenty of room. The place where we're living presently, we have one point one five acres and we had to build eighty feet back from the road and I feel terrible about that because we've got so much lawn to mow. I'd rather have it back in the garden but anyway, an acre certainly is adequate for a very nice home. And again, to be redundant, I feel it will increase the tax base, allow for growth in the town and I think the town will continue to grow regardless of what the present economic conditions are. This seems though it's one way to help it grow. So, thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Okay, anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. KEVIN TOOMEY-Good evening, I'm Kevin Toomey, I'm here to represent my mother and father, Howard and Barb. I had many things written down here but it seems like a lot of them have already been addressed very well. They would like to urge you to go forward with this. One of the reasons for things as they are happening and have happened, I have in front of me a tax bill for November 14th, 1928 for eighty- five acres of land and the total tax base was two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. So, it is not a question, anyone of these families that have owned this property for generations could have time ago sold off like many others did but chose not to. So, it's not a question of greed, it's not a question of trying to infringe on neighbors and friends and whatever, it's a question of a sensible solution to what could be potentially problems down the road or problems with the families down the road. So, no one here is down anything other then try to preserve the land. Back when it was not even really zoned, or at the least a quarter acre, a decision was made by my family not to sell anything less then one acre and they've held strong to that right straight through. So, we do care as does everybody else but we need a sensible solution and the surrounding zoning and the surrounding properties certainly adhere to that. So, we ask you and they ask you to approve this. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Thank you, Kevin. Anyone else care to speak for or against the application to rezone? Yes, sir. MR. STEVE MYHRBERG-Good evening, my name is Steve Myhrberg and I live at 21 Lakeview Drive, just adjacent to the development here and I've listened to several people speak here tonight, Ron Montesi, Mr. Harris and I agree with them. My point for being here tonight is that I live on a piece of property that is slightly less then an acre. I don't feel I have the right to propose someone to develop a piece of property that's bigger then mine. I live in a development pretty much like one that's going to be developed here but my main concern for being here is that we take a strong look at what's going to be proposed and to make sure everyone does their job. I think some points, like urban runoff need to be addressed. I haven't heard that mentioned tonight and I don't know if that's a policy that happens when it becomes a development but that needs to be taken care of. I think Lake Sunnyside is a precious lake, it needs to be looked at. Also, the traffic that's in the area, I do believe that it is going to increase the traffic, it has to. You're talking close to ninety-one lots. The road at Sunnyside, without question I don't think anyone here that doesn't know Sunnyside disagrees that it does have a fair amount of traffic and it would be a sad day if a life was lost. I think some energy needs to be looked into the direction of traffic safety. I think that's important and I'm just here to kind of remind everybody that they have a job to do and like Mr. Harris said, I think change is good, it's inevitable. We live in a world that change is there. I just think it's people's responsibility to make sure those changes are done in a responsible way and that the environment is protected. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thanks, Steve. Okay, anyone else? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I have a couple ofletters. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's hear those. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following letters into the record: Dear Supervisor, I am writing to give support to the rezoning to the Harris, Oudekerk, Toomey and Zverblis properties to RR3 to SFRIA. We live and own extensive properties across the street from all of these properties and thus have a very direct interest here. This kind of rezoning is just good common sense. Three acre zoning in most all areas of southern Queensbury is illogical and never should have happened. It helps only the established and those who wish to maintain the status quo as in the case with the opponents to the Indian Ridge Development. Three acre zoning insures by it's very nature almost development due to it's inherent costs, thus destroying much needed jobs for hundreds of people from contractors to suppliers and their employees which are much needed in our area. Also, rezoning here is in character with much of the surrounding area. I urge you to vote yes on this rezoning. Sincerely, Daniel R. Barber. Dear Sir, We presently own property just south of the proposed area requesting a change from three acres to one acre residential. As you know the Toomeys, Oudekerks, Harris and Zverblis are requesting a change to be the same as our property which is one acre residential. We are in full support of their zoning change requested. This would enable their properties to be more easily sold at a reasonable price per lot or as complete parcels for developing. The zoning change would allow the owners to be more likely to obtain a sale during these difficult times for real estate residential sales. It seems that today the lots that are selling are smaller, economical lots in developments with services. We have had our property listed for three years and subdivided as five acre lots and can say the price is falling fast to sell them. One acre lots with a public road would have sold rapidly at a lower cost per lot. The Planning Department has told me this is why our two lots have not sold and I believe they correct. The cost to develop is extensive and it requires several low cost lots to even consider it. Unfortunately we did not have enough land acreage to do what our neighbors should be able to. With our agreement in the zoning change, please don't hesitate to call us if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Larry and Andrea Gray. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that it Caroline? Okay, is there any other comments before we, how about from the board? Questions, concerns? Are we ready to do the SEQRA? That's it, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:25 P.M. Supervisor Champagne-Jim, are you ready to lead us through the SEQRA? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I just had a couple of questions on the SEQRA form, maybe Tom can help me out just to make sure we have a good complete. Under Part I, Tom, on page 3, maximum vehicular trips generated per hour was left as not applicable. Mr. Nace-For residential development, the peak hour is just about one trip per hour per unit or per household so that would be say a hundred to a hundred and twenty trips an hour for talking in that range. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Alright, on page 4, total anticipated Supervisor Champagne-Have you got the official closing of the public hearing, Caroline? Deputy Town Clerk Barber-Yes. Supervisor Champagne-Okay. Go ahead, Jirn. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Number 23, total anticipated water usage per day at thirty-five thousand gallons. Was that assuming full build out of Mr. Nace- That's a three hundred and fifty gallons per residence for a hundred residences, a hundred houses. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Supervisor Champagne-Jim, I'd also like to add, there was a question by Steve earlier regarding, I think he said, urban runoff. I would have to assume that what he's referring to is the stormwater runoff and the concern about ditching and the lake, we do have a procedure and you help with this? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Stormwater runoff is dealt with at subdivision time, there are specific regulations in the subdivision code and there's a series of calculations that are applied that basically to put it in layman's terms, you're pre-development runoff rate can not be exceeded by the post development runoff rate. So, in other words, the water generated off the site can not be any greater then it was prior to development. And also, there's a series of, there's a grading and drainage plan that will be required to be submitted. Drainage from the roads, drainage for the overall development and I think in this position we would probably be looking at a combination of infiltration and some retention given the varying soil types we find. Mr. Nace- Yea, given the soils and the fact that our low spots are the wetter soils, we probably would be looking at mostly retention or detention. Supervisor Champagne-Okay, good. Mr. Nace-But it should also be noted that most, ninety-five percent of this property drains toward the south, into the Halfway Brook watershed eventually and away from Glen Lake. Councilman Monahan-And I think when you're doing construction around the wetlands area, you're looking at silt fencing and hay bailings and things like that to protect the silt from going through. Supervisor Champagne-Okay, Jim, do you want to proceed? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, and then on page 5 at the top, I think the Planning Board should be indicated as an agency that is involved, Town Planning Board. And also, under federal agency, I know I talked to Mark about this, probably Tom is aware, I think it would be a good idea that the wetland delineation done for this according to the Army Corp. Standards. That's something, again that, I would anticipate be taken care of with subdivision. Mr. Nace- That's correct. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Supervisor Champagne-Okay, now let's make sure I have this correct. We're talking the second one down, City, Town, Village Planning Board, there's a no. Mr. Nace- That should be yes. Supervisor Champagne-That should be yes? Mr. Nace- That is correct and the last one under that same group. Supervisor Champagne-Federal Agency, we're talking about possibly Army Corp. of Engineers? Mr. Nace-Yes, Army Corp. of Engineers, wetland. Councilman Monahan-And Jim, I would assume that the County, the Health Department would come into this too. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Well that was my next question in terms of the number Councilman Monahan-For that many units. Mr. Nace- That's, the state agencies, okay, should be checked, the next to the last one. State, it would be, not the County Health Department but the State Health Department. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The State DOH. Mr. Nace- That's correct. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. The first question is answered yes and the check marks I think should be placed, should be zoning amendment and subdivision. Okay, does everybody agree with that? Supervisor Champagne-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Number II and 12, will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services. I just, there's obviously going to be some demand. Councilman Goedert-The property is already there so it would already have these demands. Councilman Monahan-No, not the extent it does when you develop it. Supervisor Champagne-Well, when it's built out. Mr. Nace- Y ea recreation, there is some, any development has some increased demands for fire protection and Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We're not saying it's a project killer or anything like that, I'mjust saying that I think it will increase some what. Councilman Pulver-Right, and I would answer that as a yes. Mr. Nace- There are two questions there. The first one you answer yes and the second one, sufficient capacity you would answer Councilman Goedert-That would be yes. Councilman Monahan-I think it's a yes, too. Mr. Nace- Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Alright, if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Okay, those are the only ones I had a question on. Town Counsel Schachner-First you were on community provided services, did you get to 12 just now? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yea. Town Counsel Schachner-Did you get to 12 or did I miss that? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yea, 12a, if yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic. I would assume the applicant Supervisor Champagne-I would say yes to that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Well, it's not, it's the applicant, I would assume the applicant would say yes. Mr. Nace- That is correct. That should have been checked yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's all I had on Part I. Supervisor Champagne-Let's go to Part II. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I just wondered in B on page 3, c, project acreage to remain undeveloped since they certainly do not plan to develop that wetland and stuff, and yet they have none there. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Supervisor Champagne-What number are you on, Betty, I'm Sorry? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Blc, on page 3. Supervisor Champagne-Project acreage should be undeveloped. Councilman Monahan-Yea, because there's the wetland area that would be undeveloped. Mr. Nace-Okay, it would be undeveloped but it would still be included in the lots. Okay, the wetland may be one entire lot of twenty or thirty acres. Okay, so it is, still, I don't know, you could answer that I suppose either way but that's the intention is that, it might be one lot and there might be a house somewhere back on a high piece of ground there but yes the majority of the wetland would not be touched. Supervisor Champagne-What do you want a number in there, a percentage or what are you looking for? Councilman Monahan-Well I just, you know, I don't know because they're talking about that not being developed. It certainly won't be developed even with a house on it. So, I think maybe we do an asterisk that says the wetland portion will not be developed or something. Mr. Nace- Yes, I think that would be more accurate. Supervisor Champagne-That's fine. Councilman Monahan-You know, an explanation type of thing. Mr. Nace-Sure, that would be much more accurate. Councilman Monahan-And I think I have another question on this form, too and that is, I don't think you can really call that land through there a suburban residential. I think of a suburban like Cottage Hill or something. I think it's really more of a rural type of area. Supervisor Champagne-Now where are you? Councilman Monahan-Oh, I'm sorry. Page 2, the site description, I, present use. You know, you've got the forest and the agriculture marked. I think you're really more rural. You're not a suburban area in that particular area, I wouldn't say. Councilman Turner-No, more rural. Councilman Monahan-It should be rural. Councilman Turner-Yea. Supervisor Champagne-Okay. Do you agree with that, rural? Number I under site description, AI, non- farm, yes? Mr. Nace- Yes. Supervisor Champagne-Okay. Now are we all set? Okay, Jim back to you. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay, we all set for Part II? Supervisor Champagne-Yea. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (IS foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%. * NO CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPE OF 15% OR GREATER Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. YES SMALL TO MODERATE - CAN BE MITIGATED * CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. NO Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. NO Construction that will continue for more then I year or involve more than one phase or stage. YES SMALL TO MODERATE - CAN BE MITIGATED * MITIGATED DURING SUBDIVISION REVIEW Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. NO Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. NO Construction in a designated floodway. NO Other impacts: NONE 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? NO Examples that would apply Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO Examples that would apply A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? YES Examples that would apply Proposed action will require a discharge permit. NO Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. NO Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. NO Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. NO Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. NO Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. NO Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. YES SMALL TO MODERATE Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. NO Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. NO Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. YES SMALL TO MODERATE * DESIGN OF PROJECT Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. NO Other impacts: NONE 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? YES * MITIGATING FEATURE REQUIRED - THE DRAINAGE FLOW OR PATTERN WILL NOT BE ALTERED Examples that would apply Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed Sibs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? YES Examples that would apply The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) NO Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. NO The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. YES SMALL TO MODERATE The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) NO Other impacts: NONE IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES II. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO Examples that would apply Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO Examples that would apply The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? NO List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION IS. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO Examples that would apply Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources offuel or energy supply? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? YES Examples that would apply The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. NO The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. NO Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. NO Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. NO Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. NO Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Other impacts: 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF REZONING OF HARRIS, TOOMEY, ZVERBLIS & OUDERKERK PROPERTY LOCATED AT BAY AND SUNNYSIDE ROADS RESOLUTION NO. 429, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain property owned by Mr. Ronald and Mrs. Shirley Harris, Mr. Howard and Mrs. Barbara Toomey, Mr. Frank Zverblis (Betty Zverblis) and Mr. Albert and Mrs. Eleanor Ouderkerk (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No.'s: 48-3- 53, 48-3-51.1, 48-3-49.1, 46-1-3, 48-3-51.5 and 48-3-51.4) and located at Bay and Sunnyside Roads), and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is 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 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 Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will have no significant effect on the environment, 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 Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation and mail a copy of this determination to all involved agencies. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY HARRIS, TOOMEY ZVERBLIS & OUDERKERK LOCATED AT BAY AND SUNNYSIDE ROADS FROM THE CURRENT ZONING OF RR-3 TO SR-IA RESOLUTION NO. 430, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, Mr. Ronald and Mrs. Shirley Harris, Mr. Howard and Mrs. Barbara Toomey, Mr. Frank Zverblis (Betty Zverblis) and Mr. Albert and Mrs. Eleanor Ouderkerk, have petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a zoning change of their property lying and existing within the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No. 's: 48-3-53, 48-3-51.1, 48-3-49.1, 46-1-3, 48-3-51.5 and 48-3- 51.4, located at Bay and Sunnyside Roads and currently zoned RR-3A (Rural Residential- 3 Acres) to be rezoned to SR-IA (Suburban Residential-l Acre), and WHEREAS, on or about August 27, 1996, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board adopted a resolution to recommend to the Town Board approval of the rezoning of the subject property, and WHEREAS, on or about September II, 1996, the Warren County Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending approval of the rezoning contingent upon the concurrence with the Town Planning staff recommendations, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on November 4, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the rezoning will have no significant environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to rezone the property owned by Mr. Ronald and Mrs. Shirley Harris, Mr. Howard and Mrs. Barbara Toomey, Mr. Frank Zverblis (Betty Zverblis) and Mr. Albert and Mrs. Eleanor Ouderkerk (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 's: 48-3-53, 48-3-51.1, 48-3-49.1, 46-1-3, 48-3-51.5 and 48-3-51.4) located at Bay and Sunnyside Roads to SR-IA (Suburban Residential-l Acre), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the zoning map for the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provide for the rezoning of said lands, and the Town Clerk is authorized to arrange with the Town Surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone and send a copy of this Resolution to the Executive Director of Community Development for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby directed to mail or send a copy of this Resolution Amending the Zoning Ordinance with a letter advising that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance has been amended as set forth herein to the applicant, if any, Warren County Planning Board, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, the Director of Building & Codes, and any agency which was an involved agency for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to the requirements of Article XIII of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and ~265 of the Town Law, the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified copy of said changes be published in the Glens Falls Post -Star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect upon filing of the same in the Office of Town Clerk. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None (Five minute recess taken) PUBLIC HEARING - WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE HOUSE - FINANCIAL OBLIGATION NOTICE SHOWN 9: 10 P.M. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll open the public hearing on the West Glens Falls fire house, financial obligation. So, who is here this evening to speak to that effort? Does anyone want to start, Mike, John? MR. MICHAEL PALMER-Supervisor Champagne, members of the board, my name is Michael Palmer, I'm representing the membership of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company. In November of 1995 and again in February of 96 we approached the Town Board with a preliminary proposal to rehabilitate our station one on Luzerne Road. At the time, all in attendance were very receptive and very encouraging. It was requested that we come up estimates of the project costs, architectural layouts of the proposed facility. After many months of hard and intense work, we appeared at a public hearing before the Town Board in March of 1996. At this public hearing we presented preliminary topographic layouts of the facility and a budget estimate. Further, we advised that our goal was to secure financing on a thirty year note at a six percent rate of interest. Based on this presentation and visits to our current facility by the Supervisor and Board Members, eighty-one thousand dollars was restored to our 96 contract request. This was to be used to secure the services of Richard Jones Associates to design and refurbish the station and to obtain bids based on these specifications. We're here this evening to present the plans for the modernization of our station one, including select a general contractor, bid price and financing information. At this time I would like to introduce Richard Jones to present the building layout and answer any questions regarding the design of the facility. MR. RICHARD JONES-What I'd like to do is briefly give you a history of the project. I know Mike has touched on part of the original process. Back in early 1995 we were hired by the fire company to provide them with a feasibility study to address the needs for expansion and renovation of their existing facility on Luzerne Road. At that time, we looked at several different options. One of the options basically tearing down the existing structure and constructing a new building at a cost of some what less then two million dollars. Another option presented was looking at the existing building, doing selective demolition and then creating a series of additions which would enhance their program needs and address all of their future concerns for growth in their fire district. We opted at that point to basically go to the one point two million dollar scheme which was a series of additions and renovations to the existing building. Subsequent to that, we then prepared some basic floor plan layouts and building elevations and some site plans which were presented to the Town Board in October of 1995. At that time, we basically addressed the program and the costs and the cost at the point was still one point two million dollars. After that in February of this year we proceeded with actual construction documents. We started all of the documents for the facility, looking at the basic program, addressing some new needs that had been brought to our attention at that point. We looked at additional modernization of the kitchen area. We expanded the apparatus bay again at that point and at that point this was February of 1996, the budget had risen at that point to a million two five. We presented those numbers to the fire company at that time and proceeded with construction documents. We then looked at the need for a tie into the sewer system with the city. At the present time the facility has an on-site septic system that basically is in a state offailure. They're pumping it on a, roughly a three week basis. We looked at that as an option, we felt that it was reasonable, we then pursued that with the city and the Town of Queensbury and have been able to secure that connection via the new construction that CVS is undertaking at the corner down on Luzerne Road. As part of our project, as I said, we looked at series of additions to the building. The basic building sits along Luzerne Road, it has a series of inherent problems with it. One of which is the exiting and entrance requirements of fire vehicles, emergency vehicles into the existing building. At the present time, all of the vehicles exit onto Luzerne Road, directly onto Luzerne Road into a heavily traveled road. There is very little apron in front of the building and we felt this was a problem that had to be addressed as part of our new design scheme for the facility. In looking at the existing building we opted to basically tear down the original bay that sits on the corner of Luzerne and Veterans Road. We felt this provided ample site lines for the new apparatus bay which would be constructed to the rear of the existing apparatus area. We looked at this as a phase type project where we had to go one step at a time. We knew we had to construct new apparatus bays before we could move any vehicles out of the existing apparatus bay areas. In proceeding in this fashion, this allowed us several very obvious things for the site and basically it allowed us to segregate the fire company traffic, all of the emergency vehicles now exist directly onto Veterans Road, a safe distance from the intersection of Luzerne and Veterans Road. Vehicle traffic for the apparatus bays actually comes in either from Luzerne Road or directly off Veterans Road and loops around the backside of the facility. We're able to segregate that from traffic for the public assembly portion of the building. That was something that we wanted to maintain in the building and when we first started looking at the project we were doing limited renovations in this area. The training hall assembly space seats approximately three hundred and twenty people. It currently exists in a L shape in the existing building. As part of the renovation program for the facility, as I indicated, we looked at renovating basically a new kitchen area for them. (referred to plans) In doing an investigation of the structure, this portion of the building actually had a wood frame roof. It was considerably lower then the old portions of the metal framed roof and had created a series of leaking problems along the new wall even though it has been re-roofed approximately three to four years ago. So this is something that we were looking to address and hoping to be able to basically find a solution for. With our ability to connect to the city sewer system, we felt now we could actually re-group toilets in the building. At the present time there's two sets of public toilets, one in the front area, one in the back so we were able to consolidate those into one general area and by doing that, create a rectangular space for the training assembly hall portion of the building. It's a space approximately twice the size of this existing room that we're in at the present time. We looked at upgrading finishes and mechanical systems as well as integrating new insulation into the building. When they reroofed the building approximately three years ago they added new insulation to the roof under the single ply membrane but we're looking to upgrade additional insulation on the bottom side of the decks in the existing portion of the building. The mechanical systems for the current training hall are antiquated, there's not good mechanical ventilation in that area so we were looking to take the materials from that, the existing mechanical units and re-use those in selected areas, other areas of the building, in the office areas. We are looking at a new mechanical system for that which includes air conditioning, heating and a energy type system where we can actual cool the portion of the building with outside air without having to run the cooling system. The apparatus bays basically accommodate, there are eight truck bays with a drive through capacity and as I indicated before they have the potential, if needed for expansion along Veterans Road if that is so required. We consolidated all of the fire company activities into the central portion of the building and these are their toilet areas, their shower areas, their decon (decontamination), all of their equipment storage. At the present time, equipment storage in the building is haphazard at best. There's equipment stored in every nook and cranny in the present building, there is no consolidated storage area. There is no real good area of storage which is secure. We're looking at a secured area. We've also designed it so that we have a mezzanine area over this for additional storage for tires, apparatus, those types of things. In looking at the existing portion of the building, this would be the old apparatus bays, this gave us an abundance of area to basically laid out the office areas, the training rooms, the conference rooms that are needed for the fire company. It includes a series of offices, conference rooms, we have a small dayroom which is now located central to the entire fire facility. We have good access on both sides of the building for the fire fighters to get into the building. We have access here onto the backside, access on the corner as well as the end of the apparatus bay. Another very important function of the facility was, as I indicated, the training hall which is used for bingo which is a source of income for the fire company. We've now created a separate entrance into that and basically been able to segregate the public assembly space from the fire company areas by a series of doors that are locked from one side thus allowing the fire company to exit through but not allowing people in the public assembly space to come back into the fire company areas. The basic building itself at the current time is a series of one story brick additions that have been tied to the original front corner. The original front corner here was the first building and it has had a series of additions to it. We're looking to unite the facade of the building through a series of masonry type bands. We're looking at colored masonry at the present time. This shows a red band. We've been able to work with the contractor to reduce some of the costs on the project and we're not looking at a ground face block material which will be a charcoal color. This will lend itself to the charcoal caps that we have on the facias, the charcoal cap that we have on the tower in the other entry areas. The building itself is basically a maintenance free exterior. Window units are all be replaced in the building with energy efficient thermal brake frames and insulating glass. The overhead doors are now able to accommodate all of the vehicles that the fire company has. At the present time they have a rescue vehicle that sits in the end bay and that's the only bay that they can use for that vehicle because it has the clearance and the head room for it with the door. Basically, this will allow them to have access through on either of the two sides of the building and accommodate all of their equipment. In looking at the general cost for the building, back in June of this year we presented a budget to them that was approximately one point three two million. To that, we did not add any contingency costs which basically brought it to over one point four million dollars. I know there has been some confusion about the cost and the cost that was originally presented to the town. Approximately a year ago, we presented a number that was one point two million. We had been working with the fire company and the additions that were put into the building, the expansion of space, the additional space that was renovated within the building has brought it up into the million and a half dollar range. Basically, to date in working with the contractor, we've been able to cut over sixty-eight thousand dollars out of our budget number. At the current time, we have the building construction cost down to one point five four nine million dollars and that includes the alternates that the fire company wanted to select in regard to additional insulation on the roofs and the type of thing. Things that we feel have a definite pay back for the fire company. The building itself, as I said is a single story mason restructure. We're looking at something that is maintenance free. All of the units in the building are new as far as mechanicals with the exception of the reused mechanical systems that we'll salvage and use in the offices but one of our main criteria is to make the building as energy efficient as possible and I think we've done that by a series of additional insulation systems and design of the building additions which basically bring the building into the conformance with the new energy code. I'd be happy to answer any questions that anyone may have. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Board? The tower, is that an essential piece of furniture that we have to have there? I have no idea what a tower would cost to construct but is that an expensive MR. JONES-Basically we looked at the tower as being an identifying feature on the building. That portion of the building houses the radio room for the fire company and it's located here adjacent to the apparatus bays. We wanted it to be in a location that would allow visibility down the front side of the doors plus visibility back, there's actually inside glass here on the corner that allows visibility all the way back through the apparatus bay. The portion of the building as far as the tower, this dark charcoal line that you see here is the top of the parapet where the mezzanine occurs. The only thing that actually sticks above that is the metal clad roof above that. Basically, this houses the control panels for all of the radio controls and the door operation and basically any other operation as far as the fuel island, those types of controls in the building. The only additional cost is the peaked roof and we've tried to capture that at each one of the entries to give it an identity into the building as well. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-When you described it as a tower, it's not what we're thinking of as a tower, it's just something that jets above the regular roof line. MR. JONES-Yes, it's an architectural feature that just anchors the center portion of the building. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And we're at one point five four nine? MR. JONES-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that the number we've been working with, Bill on calculations? COMPTROLLER, MR. BILL BURNS-We're at one point six million. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And that debt load was a hundred and twenty? COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-A hundred and twenty-one thousand per year. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, we're knocking off sixty whatever it is there, sixty-four, sixty-five? COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think it's sixty-eight, two hundred. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -John, what are your bank agreements? MR. JOHN WELLS-If Mike could continue, he could explain. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, go ahead. MR. WELLS-The cost is actual, it's not the one point five four. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MR. WELLS-And Mike can explain it further as he continues his presentation, it will be addressed. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You're on Mike. MR. PALMER-Okay, at this point we would like to point out as the governing body of this municipality, we appreciate how you've embraced this project to date. It also must be pointed out that this board had the foresight to identify that this need existed long before it was confirmed by a private consulting firm in 1996. The initial justification came from this board not from the private consultant. Before discussing the general contract, the bid price and financing information, we would like to show you a short video which depicts the many varied activities that West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company delivers and or participates in a given year. (Video presentation given) MR. PALMER-I'd like to point out that what you just saw is a direct result of continued support of the governing body and the hard work of the volunteers through their fund raising efforts. Upon soliciting bids on the project, eleven subcontractors looked at the specifications with eight submitting formal bids. We selected V&H general contractors of Fort Edward as a preferred develop for this project. The bid price for the project was one million five hundred and sixty-three thousand three hundred dollars. Coupled with add items and a municipal sewer system, it would bring the total projected cost to one million six hundred and sixty-seven thousand three hundred dollars. Through continued negotiations with the architect and V&H Construction, we are pleased to propose the following. Building construction cost equal one million four hundred and ninety-nine thousand four hundred dollars. The add alternates we equal forty-nine thousand seven hundred dollars. The municipal system at a cost of thirty-eight thousand nine hundred dollars bring the total cost to one million five hundred eighty-eight thousand dollars. This equates to approximately seventy dollars per square foot for construction. We selected Evergreen Bank of Glens Falls to finance the project. The terms would equal a six and a half percent interest rate, fixed for five years on a thirty year note which would require an annual mortgage of a hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars and that is contingent on the construction period. It is important to remind everyone this project was undertaken primarily for health and safety reasons as well as a need to have some flexibility within the facility for future growth. As our responsibilities continue to increase the original apparatus bay which is 1945 vintage and houses our rescue unit has some serious structural deficiencies. All apparatus responding to or returning from alarms are in Luzerne Road traffic due to close proximity ..apron to the roadway. This road is quickly becoming a main highway due to the congestion on the Corinth Road. For the health of our fire fighters, a more efficient means of evacuating dangerous diesel fumes is required. However, the current setup of the facility is very limiting in allowing proper movement of air within the structure. Water ponding on the apparatus floor especially in the winter months is very dangerous and a lack of floor drains complicates the situation. All apparatus is limited it's ability to be housed because the current door heights are not sufficient for modern vehicle construction. There's currently no provisions for such items as washing turnout gear and equipment, decontamination, eye wash stations or other safety mechanisms as the facility is simply maxed out. It also lacks municipal support functions which would be required such as sewer and additional water supply. We have made this building function for fifty years but quite honestly, the demands on the fire service to expand the service that's provided together with the operational demands by local, state and federal governing bodies, have grown at such a rate this facility can no longer accommodate these additional demands. This facility also serves as a shelter during natural disasters and is in evacuation site for emergencies at the Hallmark Nursing Center. Mr. Champagne, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, and Mrs. Pulver we're greatly appreciative of the support, suggestions and guidance provided by each one of you throughout this project. Tonight, we asked for your continued support by voting favorably on the proposed project. This is the right thing to do to insure our most precious resource to members of this community that as this town continues to grow, their protection and piece of mind is also guaranteed without delay at a moments notice. We assure you this modernization project will produce a facility that will continue to be the hub of our community as the west end continues to grow and expand on a daily basis. It also will allow our members to more efficiently and safely supply the services required. In closing, this projects provides for an efficient delivery of services to the community, it provides a safe and healthy working environment for the providers, the dedicated volunteer men and women of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you, Mike. Care to add anything more from your side? I'd like to open it up to the public now. MR. WELLS-Only if you have specific questions in regard to the financing. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, let me say to the audience, you've heard the proposal, we do have an open public hearing here tonight, anyone care to come up and either for or against, in addition to what we've heard already? Yes, sir. MR. BERNARD RA YHILL-My name is Bernard Rayhill, I'm neither for nor against, I'm just interested in some information. Are we talking about three hundred and twenty seat assembly hall? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Dick? MR. P ALMER-That hall currently is a three hundred and twenty-five person capacity at this time. MR. RA YHILL- That is seated. Is that larger then this room? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-I believe it is. MR. P ALMER-I would guess it is. As it is right now, it's three hundred and twenty-five. COUNCILMAN PULVER-This is only rated for three hundred. MR. RA YHILL-I see. Well, our former Ward 3 Councilman suggested a number of years ago that Glens Falls and Queensbury get together and share some of their equipment and facilities in order to be economical in the area of fire companies. And, how many fire companies do we have in Queensbury, four? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT -Five. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Five. MR. RA YHILL-Five. Is there anyway that the fire company in West Glens Falls can use some of the facilities on the other part of town? And, this is a question that comes to my mind, for bingo or other items. I'm just wondering, there's an awful lot of money involved here. We're talking about new air conditioning, new heating. We're talking about eight trucks and we don't know the size of the trucks. What size trucks are we talking about? COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-First of all MR. RA YHILL- The bays for the trucks. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-The assembly area is already there and that's going to stay there. Correct? You're just removing a wall from that location, this is, the areas to where the apparatus is, Mike you can give him the depth of the, the height of the apparatus doors? MR. P ALMER-The apparatus doors are going to ... I believe it's thirteen feet, four inches which allows modern apparatus to ... MR. RA YHILL-How many trucks? MR. PALMER-Right now we are housing six, seven vehicles at station one. MR. RA YHILL-Fire trucks? MR. PALMER-Fire trucks and auxiliary vehicles. MR. RA YHILL- Well, how many fire trucks and how many auxiliary vehicles? MR. PALMER-There's six fire trucks and one auxiliary vehicle. MR. RA YHILL-I see. At the present time, are we financing the auxiliary fire department or I should say the ambulance corp. with the insurance of individuals who use the fire company? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-He's talking about EMS, he's talking about something different. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, he's talking about EMS, our ambulance service. MR. RA YHILL- Yes, yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, that's still be funding a hundred percent through town tax. MR. RA YHILL- Now, many communities to fund the ambulance through the insurance of the individual and if the individual doesn't have an insurance policy or an HMO that covers the ambulance, then the town could cover it. This is a cost of course that is related to cost in itself. I realize that you're saying it's a different issue, but I'm thinking about costs and when I think about three million six hundred and thirty thousand dollars over thirty years, that's alot of money and it seems to me that, you have to think in terms of cutting costs and if you're going to cut costs, you're going to have to look at ways to share your five fire facilities as Mr. Caimano suggested two years ago and I think that maybe that's why you're on the board because Mr. Caimano made that suggestion, I don't know. But the fact is, it is a very important concept of sharing your fire facilities, one with another in order to cut costs. And you have to work that out, I'm no going to work it out for you, it's just a suggestion. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think what we need to know too, Bernie, is we have, what seventy-two square miles COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Correct. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Of town which kind of is broad based and spread out, and in a recent study that was done by a consultant that had come in, to be very honest with you, was that we are not over equipped with fire apparatus nor are we under equipped. I think what you say is true, that by all means we need to, I call this just shared services. We do need to share personnel, we do need to share equipment and I think we're working toward that to be very honest with you. Also in reference to your concern about the EMS, certainly we have studied that, we have not certainly given up proceeding in that direction but there is some merit to taking a look at insurance costs that would help support what's now tax based. MR. RA YHILL-Once again, I still feel that, for instance, the last time that we went into building fire houses and I looked at the fire houses, I said, my God, we have a bunch of Taj Mahals and we put a lot of money into those fire houses and I don't know how much you're paying right now on the previous fire houses but there must be an awful lot of money spent by the Town of Queensbury on fire houses and so COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-We pay less money, Bernie for the fire service that we get, fire and EMS service for our seventy-two point two square miles and our twenty-five thousand people then the City of Glens Falls pays for their three point three square miles. So, according to our calculations we are getting a, as Fred puts it, a bang for our buck and the companies do accommodate each other with services, with joint services. They have gone into purchasing joint services for less funds or for less cost. They mutual aide within their own departments because it's become quite obvious that in the area of our size it takes more then what one company can fiscally do. They call in mutual aide within their own, it's not, it's this one company is looking for a building, but it's joint fire service in the Town of Queensbury, they're contract to service the whole town. MR. RA YHILL- Well, once again, if you have three hundred and twenty seats in five different buildings, that's a COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-No, this is only one. This is only one, in fact I believe these are the only people that have that size of an area. All of the other companies do not have that. MR. RA YHILL- What is the rational for increasing the number of seats, or seating area in this particular facility? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Basically, it's remaining the same. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-They're not. COUNCILMAN PUL VER- They're going down five. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let me just add another dimension to this. This is the only company that I'm aware of, now, Bill correct me here if I'm wrong. My understanding is that this company has zero debtedness? COMPTROLLER, MR. BURNS-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Zero, they have paid off in the course of the last ten to fifteen years that I'm aware of, whether it was apparatus, new fire trucks, whether it was the building, station number two as a result of the bingo activity that they have and I'm going back a few years ago where the net profit was well into the neighborhood of sixty, seventy thousand dollars. Granted, it's come down some what from then but this company works very hard through that accommodation to provide the kind of dollars that it takes to make the company what it really is and I think that here this evening, making this kind of request, is well in line with what their goals and purposes and the number that they serve out there in West Glens Falls. MR. RA YHILL-Okay, fine if you feel that way with regard to the hundred and twenty-one thousand dollars per year, that's fine. But once again, you know, when you're talking about a budget in the future, you have to think about all of your expenses and we have left out alot of recreational expenses in the past and I think those are areas that we might want to address in the future. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, what is the figure that your company, or Johnny, what is the figure that your company has put in to fire fighting from your own funds, bingo and donations, you know, through the buildings and equipment for the past many years? MR. PALMER-The projected list that I have and I think it goes back about ten years at this point is one point one two million which includes station two, our original rescue vehicles upgrades, additions, modernization of other equipment, turnout gear, things of that nature that we would normally becoming to the town to fund. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, and that did not cost the town taxpayers one cent. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, does anyone else care to add? Mr. Naylor. MR. PAUL NAYLOR-And she recognized me. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-Well, we haven't seen you in quite a while. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's nice to see you here. MR. NAYLOR-I'm out in good company tonight, guys. Paul Naylor, Division Road, West Glens Falls. I'm for this project and so is my family. This fire company has been there for me and I'm here for them. That's all I've got to say. Do you want a fight? We're going. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to add? MR. BRIAN LAFLURE-Brian LaFlure, I live in Queensbury. I've known the guys in West Glens Falls for a very long time and have been a fire fighter in Queensbury for twenty-five years. Good or bad, I've been responsible or at least involved in a number of the Taj Mahals, as it were that have been built in this town. I guarantee you, and I use that guarantee as a very strong word that I've been in a lot of fire stations allover the Eastern United States, these are not Taj Mahals. These are working fire houses. The fire houses that have been built in Queensbury are working buildings, they look good, they work well, there's a reason why they're there. One thing that I would like to address that hasn't been brought up at this point. Mike touched on it very briefly. The fire service in the Town of Queensbury took it upon themselves and I'm not going to say this in a derogatory manner but basically because no one else was, that there were no emergency shelters in the Town of Queensbury. The school system is not capable of doing that. They can do transportation. They physically are not capable to provide emergency shelter due to their lack of emergency power. When the fire services started about ten years ago to look at new fire stations and Queensbury Central was the first one, the new one to be built, we took it upon ourselves to do what needed to be done to make every single fire house in the Town of Queensbury an emergency shelter. That doesn't mean we installed beds or anything like that. What we did do was make sure that every building was self sufficient in the event of a serious ice storm, whatever kind of a situation of natural disaster came around, that there was a place where the residents of the Town of Queensbury could go. They can come here but there's no emergency power. There won't be any heat, there won't be anything. If there's a power outage for a week, where is everybody going to go? And the bottom line is, right now in the Town of Queensbury the choices you've got are the eight fire houses and I know it sounds like we've put alot of money into fire houses and there's no question that we have, but it needs to be there. You got to put those people some where, you can't take several thousand residents that don't have any means to heat their homes, you've got to put them somewhere and the ones that absolutely, positively have to have a place to stay, they're going to end up at the fire houses. So, I do think that that's important. We've taken it upon ourselves to make sure that the kitchens that are in each of these fire houses, they are not commercial kitchens but they are good kitchens. They will work. They have shower facilities. We have emergency power. We have the capability of some how providing something to the residents in our areas. So, I think that's real important. As far as this project goes, I've been working with the West Glens Falls Department, good or bad as a consultant on this project and they have worked very hard as is evidence by that video that you saw which by the way, cost nothing. These guys work very hard. They do alot. That is one year, that video that you saw is one year's events, 1995 including the death of their past chief, a very emotional situation with Vic Miner. All the fire prevention that you saw there, the events, the fires, all those things, that's just a very small rendition of what they do in one year. So, I think it's important that everybody recognize how difficult and how hard it is for the volunteer fire fighters and emergency service people in the Town of Queensbury and what they have to do. What did you do for alarms last year, Mike, two forty-three, two fifty. Queensbury Central did over four fifty. When you look at all the fire departments in the town and especially the two busiest ones and you're trying to say, who needs the apparatus? Whose covering four exits of the intestate for hazardous materials, confined space, car accidents, tractor trailer roll overs, whose doing that work? And you really got to think about it, the seventy-two square miles compared to the four square miles. I feel very good about this project. These guys have worked very hard to build what they've done, they've worked around an existing building that for anybody else, you would say, let's knock it down, start over again. These guys have worked very hard to make a good project out of what they have, what they've already paid for and I think it's an excellent project and I would hope that you would support it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you, Brian. Anyone else care to speak? Yes, sir. MR. STERLING AKINS-Sterling Akins, I live on Corinth Road. I was in the fire company when it started and I built the first truck and they've always been pretty financially responsible and I think I'd like to see the board back them up on this and go along with it. I've heard some figures as what it's going to increase our taxes and for what it's going to increase our taxes on a hundred thousand dollar house or something like that, it's well worth it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Even with a little luck over there Mr. Comptroller, we might even be able to do this without an awful lot increase in taxes, at this point. COUNCILMAN GOEDERT-We can't say that until we have agreements with, negotiated agreements with our compames. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, we're just keeping our fingers crossed. Okay, anyone else care to speak? MR. PAUL DAIGLE-Hi, I'm Paul Daigle from Queensbury. I do not live in the area where it's being talked about for this fire house. I live in the area to be serviced by Queensbury Central. I'm for this project totally. I feel that that fire house is way antiquated by today's standards. It shouldn't even be used as a fire house. There's alot of scuttle but go around that there assembly hall is too large. Why a fire house with such a large assembly hall? The money that they generate with that assembly hall is highly imperative. All the way around, the location of the building being right on the road, it's not safe. The building itself as I've mentioned, as not by today's standards proper. The increased of population we're getting in the town, just here tonight, we took a portion of land and brought it down where you can put a house per one acre instead of three acres. Of course it don't happen in this area here but that's going to be coming down the road. There's Hudson Pointe that's building like mad right now. Many other projects coming up in the future. It's time to plan. The cost of this project will never decrease, it will also go up and you need the service. And the fact that these are volunteers, there doing this volunteer. Something that I don't do. I should donate more time maybe to volunteer my own community. These people are doing this for their community and to not be able to have this kind offacility, I feel that it's not right. I'm all for it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Anyone else? Did I see another hand go up? Yes, sir. MR. GLENN GREGORY-My name is Glenn Gregory, I'm a thirty-five year member of West Glens Falls Fire Company. Just to give you a brief history of what this hall does for us. I have fought fires out of that building for thirty-five years. I've seen it deteriorate, be rebuild, deteriorate, at the point now there's no more rebuilding. Years ago we had an ice storrn. People slept at our fire house before we had the bingo hall for six days in a row, no place else to go. After we built the bingo hall, we had a severe sleet storm on a Saturday night, we took in two bus loads of people, mostly kids and kept them for the weekend in our bingo hall. Because they had no place else to go and no place to eat, no place to sleep, we provided it for them, food and bedding. We are constantly working to help the people in the territory, both our own West Glens Falls people as well as outsiders and I believe being denied this opportunity to better ourselves, to better the community would be a bad thing to do. I hope you all approve this project. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? I'll close the public hearing and we'll take it from there. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:58 P.M. Councilman Pulver commended the fire company for doing a great job. Supervisor Champagne complimented the fire company on the job they've done. Councilman Monahan commended the fire company for their financial responsibility and the way they've handled their money over the years. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCURRING OF FINANCIAL OBLIGATION BY THE WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. INC. RESOLUTION NO. 431, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury presently has an agreement with the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Company") dated December 29, 1995, wherein the Company has agreed to provide fire protection services for a certain area of the fire protection district located within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, by resolution no. 152, 96, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury modified said agreement to increase the dollar figure in the agreement by $81,000 in anticipation of the Company's proposal to renovate and add to the firehouse, for a new total for 1996 to be $232,450, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company is desirous of securing financing for the construction at the firehouse on real property situate on Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and WHEREAS, the Company has obtained a Resolution of Intent from this Board for such construction at said firehouse upon the Company's said property, and WHEREAS, Evergreen Bank is agreeable to issuing to the Company a loan in the principal amount of $1,600,000 upon certain terms and conditions, and WHEREAS, in order for the interest paid on the loan to be tax exempt thus enabling the Company to obtain a lower rate of interest on the loan, certain public approval requirements as set forth in ~ 147 of the Internal Revenue Code must be followed, including the requirement of an approval of the loan by this Board after a public hearing upon notice, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury conducted a public hearing on the 4th day of November, 1996 and notice thereof was published in the Post Star Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation available to residents of the Queensbury community, and WHEREAS, said public hearing gave those interested individuals a reasonable opportunity to express their views as to the issuance of a loan in the principal amount of $1.6 million dollars from Evergreen Bank to the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., for the purpose of financing firehouse renovation and the construction of an 8,200 square foot addition to the firehouse for the housing and administration of the equipment and activities of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., on real property situate on Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has duly deliberated the testimony presented at said public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the incurring on the part of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., of financial obligations in the principal amount of $1.6 million dollars for the financing of firehouse renovation and the construction of an 8,200 square foot addition to the firehouse for the housing and administration of the equipment and activities of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., located on Luzerne Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, in accordance with the previous resolution of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does not and shall not, by the adoption of this resolution, create or intend to create, any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury, of any obligation or liability for the financing referred to herein, other than that which may exist by virtue of the contract entered into between the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., dated December 29, 1995, for fire protection services and amendment dated April 23, 1996, which contract and amendment are in writing and contain the full terms agreed to by the parties. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber read the following letters into the record: 1. Paul Naylor, Queensbury Highway Superintendent Dear Paul, The members of the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company would like to thank you for supplying the paint to do the handicap parking spaces in our parking lot on Lafayette Street. Your generosity has helped us to put the money saved into other equipment to benefit the people in our fire district. Again, thank you from all of our members. Sincerely, Robert T. Wescott 2. Town of Queensbury, Building & Code Enforcement To whom it may concern: In early September I had a problem with my septic system. My field was blocked, and I called the town office. I was directed to the Office of Building & Code Enforcement, unfortunately I neglected to get her name. When I explained my problem she could not help me enough. I went to the office and she had researched my house for me, providing me with a blueprint. She was extremely helpful explaining what I needed to do. When the field inspector came to the house, he was helpful to the person putting in the new field. When the work was finished the inspector was prompt in coming to do the inspection and polite in explaining that the new field had passed inspection. In closing, I would like to thank you for your assistance with our problem. John F. Eisenschmidt, 444 Dixon Road. Executive Director, Mr. Martin noted that the letter refers to Sandy Eggleston and John O'Brien. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1996 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 432, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne WHEREAS, certain Town Departments have requested fund transfers for the 1996 Budget and the Chief Fiscal Officer has approved said requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows for the 1996 budget: BUILDING & GROUNDS: FROM: 01-5132-4300 (Utilities) TO: 01-1620-2001 (Misc. Equipment) 5,000. 01-1620-4300-0022 (Utilities) 01-1620-1530 (Building Maintenance) CEMETERY: FROM: 02-8810-4400 01-1620-4660-0027 (Electrical Repairs) 1,000. 01-1620-4060-0022 (Service Contracts & Warranties) 3,000. TO: 02-8810-4110 1,000. FROM: PARKS AND RECREATION: TO: 107 -711 0-4400-000 (H.R. Pk. Misc. Contractual) WASTE WATER: FROM: 032-8110-2031 (Computer Hardware & Software) WATER: FROM: 001-7110-4400-000 (Misc. Contractual) 3,000. TO: 032-8120-4410 (Vehicle Repair & Maintenance 1,000. TO: $ AMOUNT: $ AMOUNT: $ AMOUNT: $ AMOUNT: $ AMOUNT: 40-8340-4291 (Meters) 40-8320-4500 (Fuel OillNatural Gas) SHARED SERVICES: FROM: TO: 01-8020-4100 01-7020-4100 01-5132-4100 01-5010-4100 01-3620-4100 01-3410-4100 01-1620-4100-0027 01-1620-4100-0024 01-1620-4100-0022 01-1420-4100 01-1410-4100 01-1355-4100 01-1330-4100 01-1315-4100 01-1220-4100 01-1110-4100 01-8010-4100 01-3510-4100 01-1650-4100 SUPERVISOR! A TTORNEY PAYROLL: FROM: TO: 01-1420-1890 01-1220-1050 and BE IT FURTHER, FROM $ AMOUNT: 104.31 889.75 3,200.20 430.90 1,195.22 23.13 694.99 500. 2,549.12 1,613.12 362.13 1,454.73 463.88 1,149.95 478.07 1,569.45 16,678.95 5,000. 2,700. RESOLVED, that the 1996 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE FOR HOLIDAY TREE TO $ AMOUNT: 77.66 392.55 16,208.74 16,678.95 $ AMOUNT: LIGHTING CEREMONY RESOLUTION NO. 433, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Friends of the Town of Queensbury will hold its annual Holiday Tree Lighting on Friday, December 6, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., and WHEREAS, all residents in the Town of Queensbury are invited to this public event, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to appropriate funds for expenses associated with the event in an amount not to exceed $1,000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appropriates a sum not to exceed $1,000 to the Friends of the Town of Queensbury for expenses associated with the annual Holiday Tree Lighting, including but not limited to, advertising, entertainment, refreshments and photographs to be paid for from the Celebrations Account No. 01-7550-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that any funds not expended by the Friends of the Town of Queensbury for the annual Holiday Tree Lighting shall be returned to the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION HIRING JIM GIRARD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION TO INSTALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG AVIATION ROAD RESOLUTION NO.: 434,96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to authorize the installation of landscape improvements along the north side of Aviation Road, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously adopted purchasing procedures, and in accordance with said procedures, a contract in an amount greater than the amount of $5,000 up to New York State bidding limits, must be approved by the Town Board before said contract is entered into, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development obtained three quotes for the proposed landscaping work, and the price of $10,000 quoted by Jim Girard Landscape Maintenance Corporation was the lowest of the three quotes, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement for the landscaping work has been presented to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to arrange for the retention of the services of Jim Girard Landscape Maintenance Corporation to perform the necessary landscape improvements along the north side of Aviation Road at a sum not to exceed the total amount of $10,000, said work to be completed by November 27, 1996, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the agreement presented at this meeting for said work in form approved by Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the costs associated with this resolution shall be paid for from Capital Project Fund #106. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF HUNTER BROOK LANE LOCATED IN PHASE II OF THE CROSSROADS PARK SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 435, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHEREAS, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. and Beth E. Schermerhorn have offered a deed to dedicate Hunter Brook Lane in Phase II of the Crossroads Park Subdivision to the Town of Queensbury, which is more particularly described in the survey map presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent, has recommended acceptance of this road, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication has been reviewed and approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed for dedication of Hunter Brook Lane is hereby accepted and approved contingent upon receipt of a properly executed release of part of mortgage premises from a partnership in the form provided to Town Counsel, 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 time 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: 500 Description: SECOND SECTION OF HUNTER BROOK LANE IN THE CROSSROADS PARK SUBDIVISION Name: HUNTER BROOK LANE Feet: APPROXIMATELY 1700 FEET Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RETENTION OF HUDSON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., FOR WATER TESTING AND SAMPLING AT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LANDFILL RESOLUTION NO. 436, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town of Queensbury to arrange for water testing of wells situated at the Town of Queensbury Landfill at Ridge Road during 1997, and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Facility Operator, James Coughlin, has previously solicited proposals for the testing of the wells and waters at the Landfill from three different companies, and WHEREAS, copies of the request for proposal specifications and bid proposals have been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, Mr. Coughlin, in his memo dated October 22, 1996, recommends that the Town Board award the bid for the well and water testing to the lowest bidder, Hudson Environmental Services, Inc., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the retention of the services of Hudson Environmental Services, Inc., for the purpose of water sampling and testing as may be required at the Landfill at a sum not to exceed $ 5,201.00, to be paid for from Account No.: 92 8160 4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and/or the Solid Waste Facility Operator is hereby authorized and directed to make such arrangements as may be necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution and should it be necessary for the Town to execute any particular agreement with regard to this service, that the same shall be in a form to be approved by Town Counsel. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION PERMITTING REPRINT OF QUEENSBURY RECORD BOOK OF THE HUDSON RIVER LOG MARKS RESOLUTION NO. 437, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Richard and Mary Merrill have requested permission from the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to reprint the Queensbury record book of the Hudson River log marks as part of a formal publication planned for 1997, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury record book of the Hudson River log marks represents a unique and irreplaceable historical record of the area and reproduction of the same would make the information available to other researchers and the general public and would also help preserve the original record book, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby grants permission to Richard and Mary Merrill, working with the Town Historian and area museums, to reprint the Queensbury record book of the Hudson River log marks. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Mr. Dick Merrill explained, the Town of Queensbury has a very unique and valuable historical document with the record of all the logging marks that were used on the Hudson River from 1831 to 1933 and that it constitutes the total history of logging on the Hudson. Our plan is to prepare a very quality document working with local museums, tieing it in with an exhibit on the falls at the Chapman next fall. So, what we're planning to do is personally reprint this document and provide a permanent copy and go to publication on it sometime next year and what we're asking for is permission from the Town of Queensbury to reproduce it and we'll give full credit to the town, no cost and I think it will be something positive for the town. (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF PRESTON COMPUTER SERVICES FOR COMPUTER CONSULTATION SERVICES FOR 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 438, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of retaining the services of Preston Computer Services for computer consultation services for the 1997 year for an annual fee not to exceed $23,296, and WHEREAS, a proposed service agreement for the 1997 year has been presented to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the retention of Preston Computer Services for the 1997 year in an agreement to be in a form approved by Town Counsel, and hereby further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the same on behalf of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the cost of the services, $23,296, shall be paid for from the General Fund, Data Processing Account. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1996 A LOCAL LAW OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS RESOLUTION NO. 439, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, a draft Local Law No. _ of 1996 "A Local Law of the Town of Queensbury Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Construction of Communication Towers," which Law shall authorize a temporary moratorium on the construction of or receipt, review or approval of applications for all communication towers in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to ~ 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law and Article 16 of the Town Law, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 18th day of November, 1996, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1996 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _, 1996 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR FRANK 1. PARILLO ALLOWING FOR EXTENSION OF THE MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE AND CORRESPONDING LOCAL LAW AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 440, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is 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 an amendment to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance by Frank Parillo whereby his parcel of land, known as Tax Map No. 125-1-28 and located at the corner of VanDusen and Pitcher Roads in the Town of Queensbury would be designated as an additional area in the Town of Queensbury for mobile home parks and subdivisions pursuant to ~ 179-29 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and otherwise be considered as part of the mobile home overlay district, and WHEREAS, on or about September 16, 1996, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a resolution authorizing the submission of the aforesaid request to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for a report and recommendation, and WHEREAS, on October IS, 1996 the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury adopted a resolution to recommend to the Town Board approval, with conditions, of the Petition for a Change of Zone for Frank Parillo to be part of the Mobile Home Overlay District, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board will consider the application for change of zone on November 13, 1996, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, or modify the Ordinance and Map, it is necessary pursuant to Town Law ~265, the Municipal Home Rule Law, and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, a proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 Thereof Entitled, 'Zoning' to Add a New Sub-Part Designating an Additional Area of the Town of Queensbury to be Part of the Mobile Home Overlay District" has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that the applicant for the proposed Zoning Amendment has submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form and completed Petition for a Change of Zone, 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 to add a new area of the Town of Queensbury for mobile home parks and subdivisions and to read as set forth in the annexed proposed Local Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said public hearing on the issues set forth in the preambles of this resolution and proposed Local Law shall be held on November 18th, 1996, at 7:00 p.rn., 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 Community Development Department 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 Community Development Department to arrange for notification of the proposed Zoning Amendment to all said property owners by mailing to said owners a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Community Development Department 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, Warren County Planning Board, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to ~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 Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the action about to be undertaken is subject to SEQRA and that it desires to be lead agency for purposes of the SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Community Development Department is hereby authorized and directed to forward the Application for Rezoning and a copy of the EAF and give notice of said public hearing and the fact that a SEQRA determination will not be made until after the hearing, to any agencies that may be involved for SEQRA purposes, and to review and send any notices to potentially involved agencies that may be necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Community Development Department is also hereby authorized and directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency, if notice is necessary. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1996 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 441, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, certain Town Departments have requested fund transfers for the 1996 Budget and the Chief Fiscal Officer has approved said requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows for the 1996 budget: HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 04-5130-4200 (Insurance) 04-5130-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 8,000. 01-5010-4090 (Conference Expense) 01-5010-4060 (Service Contracts) 300. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1996 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SEPARATING EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES FOR TAX BILL PURPOSES RESOLUTION NO. 442, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Connie Goedert WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury operates in accordance with a Town budget and sends certain tax bills to its citizens accord-ingly, and WHEREAS, such Town budget includes separate provisions for the emergency services and of both fire protection and emergency medical services, and WHEREAS, the tax bills, unlike the budget, include one line item comprising both fire protection and emergency medical services in one sum, and WHEREAS, the Comptroller of the Town of Queensbury and Queensbury Town Board now wish to separate out the budget categories of fire protection services and emergency medical services to separate tax bill line items, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the form of the Town tax bill is hereby amended to have separate line items for fire protection services and emergency medical services, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, Town Comptroller and other Town officials are hereby authorized to take such steps as are necessary to effectuate the intent of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None TOWN BOARD MEMBER MATTERS Supervisor Champagne reported to the board that the town received a F.E.M.A. check in the amount of $212,190.00 on Friday. That amount was paid to the town as a result of damage done to the filters during a January storrn. That was well executed and I want to give credit to the Water Department personnel. ATTORNEY MATTERS Town Counsel Schachner noted, there are a couple of litigation matters for executive session. OPEN FORUM 10:22 P.M. Ms. Barbara Bennett, Queensbury-Questioned whether the town is closed on election day? Supervisor Champagne-No, we'll be here. Ms. Bennett-Questioned whether the landfill is open? Supervisor Champagne-Yes. Ms. Bennett-Noted that she has no problem hearing Mr. Martin when he speaks but the girls from the Town Clerk's Office can not be heard... suggested giving Mr. Martin's microphone to the clerks. Councilman Pulver-Noted that she spoke with Chuck Rice, Superintendent of Building and Grounds and he's working on rectifying the situation. Ms. Bennett-Referred to article in the newspaper regarding Crandall Library budget and the town's average assessment being at $140,000.00 and questioned why it was so high. Supervisor Champagne-Noted, they're probably relatively close based on some high priced housing up in the north end of the town on the lake, some of those go for a million or better and they kind of off-set those of us that live in hundred thousand dollar houses. Mr. Bernard Rayhill-Referred to a newspaper article where Fred indicated that the town could payoff a portion of the bond for the trash plant. Noted that the bond for the trash plant is a private corporation, it's illegal for any town or municipality to payoff any of that. Want you to be aware of the fact that that was actually a legal mistake on your part, a mis-speaking because you can't do that, it's illegal. Supervisor Champagne-Questioned whether he indicated that and requested Mr. Rayhill bring the article to hirn... Councilman Goedert-I didn't read the article that way. I think he's the only one that read it that way. Councilman Pulver-I didn't read it that way. Town Counsel Schachner-I read the Post Star pretty diligently and I didn't see anything that attributed something like that. Mr. Rayhill-Well, you can do your own research but I read it and I saw it. Supervisor Champagne-If you're going to make a public announcement that I said something then you ought to be able to prove that and in order to prove it, I ought to be able to see the writing that I said that. I'll tell you what I thought I said. I said that in 1999 these bonds are callable. The bonds right now on the burn plant are callable in 1999. It's in 1999 that if the county chooses and if the funds are there, where ever they maybe coming from, number one, we ought to be able to make a heavy hit there. If the bond act passes, there will be funds there to payoff some of those bonds and secondly, we'll be looking at an interest rate considerably less. We've got some of those bonds out now at ten percent. Mr. Rayhill-It's a private corporation. According to the constitution, you can't do that. It's unconstitutional. Supervisor Champagne-That's not what my attorney from the county is telling me. You would have to talk to Mr. Dusek. The IDA, it's an arm of government, Warren, Washington County IDA and as an arm of those two counties, if we choose to say to the IDA, here's some funds, we want to payoff some of these debts, it would surprise me if they didn't accept. Mr. Rayhill-Once again, if it is an arm of government, it's unconstitutional for them to pay private corporation or payoff a private corporation's bonds. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 10:42 P.M. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 443, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters Executive Session to discuss three litigation cases. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN RESOLUTION NO. 444, 96 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Carol Pulver RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns their regular meeting. Duly adopted this 4th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Turner, Mrs. Goedert, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY