1990-11-19 298
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 19th, 1990
7:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS
COUNCILMAN GEORGE KUROSAKA
COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA
COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI
COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN
i
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
Kathleen Kathe, Paul Naylor, Rick Missita, Joyce Eggleston, Susan Goetz, James Hagan, Peter
Cartier, Ted Turner, Pat Collard, Nick Caimano
OLD BUSINESS
UNSAFE STRUCTURE-CROCITTO 69 MAIN STREET 7:32 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I111 ask if the owner of the property is here or his representative?
I don't see either one, I'll ask our Town Attorney if he has a copy of the letter?
TOWN ATTORNEY-I don't have it with me I don't believe, it was addressed to the Town Board,
Dave I think you brought it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Hatin, do you have a copy?
MR. HATIN-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Just to refresh the members of the Board this deals with a piece of
property on Corinth Road, West Glens Falls. Its a two apartment situation where one side
of the building is collapsing and decaying and has been declared to be unusable, uninhabitable.
I believe it was boarded up at the last meeting and the gas was turned off or was suppose to
be, the electric was suppose to be, your saying it has been done, okay. We received a letter
from the Attorney for the owner indicating that they're willing to conceive that it has to be
torn down and willing to do several other things. Dave, would you hand that letter to Paul
if you haven't already?
MR. HATIN-He has it.
SUPERVISOR BURGOS-Just read what the offer is and let's see how the Board wants to go
with this.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-First of all he says, all the power and utilities services that are servicing
the westerly side have been terminated and shut off. He says, the client proposes to secure
the property by way of padlocking both the front and back doors and that he does not believe
its necessary to board up the windows as there is currently storm and interior windows on each
window. He says, his client agreed that the westerly side of the structure would be removed
and is willing to do so in the Spring of 1991, this work would be completed by May 30th, 1991.
He further agrees that he won't let any snow build up on the roof and he proposes an escrow
fund with the Town to make sure that the snow doesn't build up. In otherwords his proposal
in general terms is that the Town would be given a sum of money and if he doesn't take the
snow off the roof the Town could hire someone to do it that's basically his proposition to get
the extension of time. I might indicate if I may, at this time for the Board that after reviewing
this matter carefully and considering the snow removal part of it I am inclined not to recommend
that part of it to the Town Board to get involved in hiring somebody to go up and take snow
off the roof because I see a lot of inherent problems with that. What if the roof caves in while
somebody's on top of it trying to shoveling it off, what if somebody is on the street at the
time it comes down, what if the building shod fall while they're doing it. There are just so
many things that could arise as potential problems if the Town gets involved in terms of trying
to remove snow that I would be concerned about that provision. Other than that I guess, its
really up to the Town Board and Dave Hatin to discuss as to how you wish to proceed from
here.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have a letter from Rist Frost acting as Engineers for the Town
dated November 19th, 1990, I presume this was hand delivered. They're last paragraph reads:
299 d
One of the concerns of the Town is whether or not the structure could support a design snow
load, particularly since the house will be unheated. We can not predict if the structure would
collapse, although in its present condition it is a possibility. The structure could also collapse
due to large wind loads and further deterioration. We do not believe it is feasible to repair
the structure due to the state of deterioration and insufficient structural integrity. The
structure represents a significant hazard to the public since in the event of a collapse a large
portion of the structure may fall on to the sidewalk and roadway.
I'll ask the Board, what's your pleasure?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-With the last statement the structure represents a significant hazard
to the public in the event of a collapse, sort of puts it on the line. I'm not sure that we have
too many alternatives except to have that building removed.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The question is when?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-As soon as possible. I think we have to make that a "pretty hard"
as soon as possible so that we can't get sand bagged into having snow etc., probably within
30 days.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Whatever the law requires. Its in my ward and I don't want to
endanger the people in my ward.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Whatever its going to take and at that point we need to do it ourselves
and put it as a lien against the property.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How do the other members of the Board feel?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Well, I feel waiting to May is much to long and with the report
from the Town Engineers I would go along with Mr. Montesi's recommendation.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 agree Steve, I think we have a potentially hazardous situation
here and we should alleviate it as soon as possible.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask our Town Attorney what is the shortest time frame we can
use to require this to be demolish?
TOWN ATTORNEY-The law provides that after he has been served with a statement which
would be tonight's board resolution he would have 30 days to start it and 60 days to complete
it so it would be 60 days from tonight or 30 days from tonight roughly.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is that agreeable to everyone?
BOARD-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you frame a resolution?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-If I may, throughout the evening perhaps draft something and have it
ready at the end of the meeting?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No problem. Any other comments?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Paul, can that resolution include that at the end of his time period
that the Town will take the matter and remove the building the unsafe part of the structure?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-1 can add that provision.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other provisions? Hearing none, well ask our Attorney to do that
and comeback before the Board before the end of the evening.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - GLEN LAKE PARKING 7:41 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask the Clerk if this`has been advertised?
TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions
about the proposed local law dealing with the "no parking" zone on Glen Lake Road?
300
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, LAW FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING PAUL
BARDIN-I am There. representing Paul Bardin who has a business within the section that the
Town is considering posting "no parking" on Glen Lake Road. We were the ones, I think who
proposed this to the Town Board, we are in favor of the proposal. Since that time we have
discussed this at a meeting of the Glen Lake Association and they have no objection to it,
in fact we have many signatures of members who were in attendance at that meeting in support
of that. I would submit for your record the petitions of thirty six individuals who are in support
of it there are twenty four individuals who own property right along that immediate area and
who traverse this part of the roadway almost daily. (submitted petition to Town Clerk)
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, I've heard no objections from anyone, have you or the Glen
Lake Association heard any objections from anyone?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Everyone seems to think its a good idea.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anything further Mr. O'Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to speak on this
subject? Any Board member?
No comment from public.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think its a problem with the people in the area who have long
been aware of and have really been waiting for this to happen.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:44 P.M.
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 15, 1990 REGULATING PARKING ON A
PORTION OF GLEN LAKE ROAD IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO. 6541, 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law
to regulate parking on a portion of Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury.
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law entitled "A Local Law Regulating Parking on
• Portion of Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury" has been presented at this meeting,
• copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1990 a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly
conducted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts and enacts the
proposed Local Law to regulate parking on a portion of Glen Lake Road in the Town of
Queensbury, to be known as Local Law Number 15, 1990, the same to be titled and contain
such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the
said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions
of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and
as soon as allowable under law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
1
ABSENT:None
UNSAFE STRUCTURE VINCENT CROCITTO-69 MAIN STREET 7:45 P.M.
APPLICANTS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Gentlemen, a little while ago your item was the first item for the
evening. We discussed your item there was no one here to represent you obviously because
2
you just arrived. The Board has considered your letter and has instructed our Attorney to
prepare a resolution to be voted on later this evening requiring that you begin to demolish
the building within thirty days and have it completed within sixty days. This is based on a
letter received from our engineer this afternoon they're concerned with potgntial collapse
with that building and then going out to the walkway and a roadway. If you wish too, its a
little bit out of our normal order, but in order to give everyone an opportunity to speak would
you like to come to the microphone identify yourself discuss. it with us.-briefly I .think that
would be appropriate.
GARFIELD RAYMOND, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF VINCENT CROCITTO-Its my
understanding that this was just preliminary what I understand is that if' your going to take
that resolution there has to be a hearing on this.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 believe tonight is the hearing it was to be held last week and tonight
was the hearing.
MR. RAYMOND-That was not my understanding. What tonight was, was to consider the proposal
that I had if that is not agreeable then we were to come in and have an actual hearing.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-My feeling is since the applicant is here he is entitled to a hearing. As
the Board proceeded just a few moments ago we didn't know that he was going to show up
or not, but I think he is entitled to a hearing. My recommendation, however, would be that
if we do have a full blown hearing I'm sure Mr. Raymond is going to want our engineer present
who issued that report in order to have a right to cross exam him in front of the Board. I think
my recommendation would be to set a date for the hearing to be concluded. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I thought tonight was the hearing, in fact I thought last week was.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's true last week was the hearing it was continued opened until tonight
my recommendation to the Board is that it be held opened for another time period so that
our engineer can also be present.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You want the engineer to be present to here the information presented?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes.
MR. RAYMOND-We just received a copy of the engineers report today and as I indicated what's
in that report it says, the possibility it doesn't say one way or the other so 1 do feel that we
should.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Rather than get into a long presentation tonight without our engineer
here with the concurrence of the Board will hold it open until the next meeting which the
December 3rd, is that correct?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes.
HEARING TO BE HELD OPENED UNTIL DECEMBER 3rd,1990 BOARD MEETING
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CHARLES AND GEORGE SICARD 7:47 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask if this has been advertised?
TOWN CLERK-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We are willing to hear from anyone speaking for or against or asking
questions about this particular property and proposal. Anyone wish to speak about this?
Any Board member wish to comment?
No public comment or Board comment.
CLOSED 7:49 P.M.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING
RESOLUTION NO. 655, 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain properties
owned by Charles Sicard (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 43-1-24.1) and George Sicard (Town
of Queensbury Tax Map No. 43-1-24.2), and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
J
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, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained
in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed
responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and
approved, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk
is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the
general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF
PROPERTIES OWNED BY CHARLES SICARD (TAX MAP NO. 43-1-24.1) AND GEORGE SICARD
(TAX MAP NO. 43-1-24.2) FROM WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES TO WATERFRONT
RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE
RESOLUTION NO. 656, 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of changing the zoning
designation of properties owned by Charles Sicard (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 43-1-241.)
and George Sicard (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 43-1-24.2) from Waterfront Residential
3 Acres to Waterfront Residential 1 Acre, and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1989, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended approval
of the proposed change affecting Tax Map No. 43-1-24.1, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also recommended approval of said change
affecting Tax Map No. 43-1-24.1 on June 14, 1989 and on December 13, 1989, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter with regard to Tax Map No. 43-1-24.1 on
November 20, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed
change affecting Tax Map No. 43-1-24.2 on March 20, 1990, with the Stipulation that the-legalities concerning the subdivision of property be cleaned up before any final approval of
the zone change be granted by the Town Boarq, and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1990, the Warren County Planning Board recommended said change
affecting Tax Map No. 43-1-24.2, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on this matter with regard to Tax Map No. 43-1-24.2 was held
on November 19, 1990, 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 areas to be rezoned,. e
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone
the properties owned by Charles Sicard (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 434-24.2) and George
Sicard (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 43-1-24.1) to Waterfront Residential 1 Acre, thereby
authorizing all uses permitted under Section 4.020-D of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance in such area, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the zoning map for the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provided
for the rezoning of said lands, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that pursuant to the requirements of Article II of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and Section 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 ten (10) days after said publication.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE W.J.T REALTY 7:50 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask if the Town Clerk has advertised this?
TOWN CLERK-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for or against this?
WAYNE JUDGE, REPRESENTING W.J.T. REALTY-As you know the property is light industrial
now. We received the positive recommendation of your Planning Board. Fred Austin of the
Highway Department unanimous, endorsement of the Warren County Planning Board and up
to this point in time Bruce Lipinski in my office has been handling the file so if anything goes
wrong tonight they'll have nobody to blame but me. I don't know of anyone who is opposed
to this proposition.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF REZONING
RESOLUTION NO. 657, 1990 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering rezoning certain property
owned by WJT Realty (Town of Queensbury Tax Map Nos. 55-2-18.1 and 55-2-18.2), 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, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained
in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed
responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and
approved, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk
is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the
general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY WJT REALTY (TAX MAP NOS. 55-2-181 and 55-218.2) FROM
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL -1 ACRE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL -1 ACRE
RESOLUTION NO. 6589 1990 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan:
WHEREAS, WJT Realty petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a zoning
change of their property (Town of Queensbury Tax Map Nos. 55-2-18.1 and 55-2-18.2) from
Suburban Residential - 1 Acre to Light Industrial - 1 Acre, and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1990, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended
approval of the petition, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also recommended approval of said petition,
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on November 19, 1990, 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 areas to be rezoned,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone
the property owned by WJT Realty (Town of Queensbury Tax Map Nos. 55-2-18.1 and 55-2-18.2)
to Light Industry - 1 Acre, thereby authorizing all uses permitted under Section 4.020-N of
the Town of Queensbury Ordinance in such area, 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
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that pursuant to the requirements of Article II of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and Section 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 ten (10) days after said publication.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - REGARDING ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
CODE 7:53 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask the Town Clerk if this has been advertised?
TOWN CLERK-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There has been a lot of discussion about this particular topic in the
last few days some of which I heard about in person, some of which I heard about in other places
and a good deal of which I read about this past Saturday and Sunday which made for very
interesting reading, but I did read each and every page of the minutes that were attached a
form of a resolution that came from a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Zoning Board.
I think its best since many people were not here when this was considered obviously, its best
to go back in time just a little bit to October lst, 1988 when the current Zoning Ordinance
took effect that followed a period of nineteen months of a moratorium on residential
subdivisions. During that time we had a Citizens Advisory Committee look at the entire Town
in terms of rules and regulations and zoning and a whole bunch of things. That committee
then reported to the Town Board the Town Board after numerous public hearings took some
action and adopted our present Zoning Ordinance which did indeed include a lot of changes
from the past. It was our feeling at that time that after nineteen months of stopping things
in Town we should get back in action and we very carefully said at that time this looks like
its going to be pretty good but there will probably be some problems with it. As some of you
know from personnel experience there have been a few problems we have acted already in
previous months to correct some of the problems as perceived. Our concern at least the concern
of the Board members I've talked to is that we try to preserve and protect the property rights
of individuals in the Town of Queensbury and we also try to preserve the character and quality
of life in the Town of Queensbury. We're trying to do that in such a way that everyone is treated
fair and equitably some of the new rules and regulations imposed on people special burdens,
extra burdens, extra filing requirements, extra time delays, extra costs also imposed on people
different uses of their property larger lots were generally required different regulations were
changed so that people maybe couldn't do what they wanted to do, but supposedly in the best
interest of the Town those changes were deemed by most of us to be quit good and beneficial.
The one thing we found out fairly soon, however, was that time was becoming a problem people
would have an idea they wanted to do something they got their financing lined up they went
out and negotiated some deals they went to do it then they found out they couldn't go one
way or the other because of certain rules and regulations that they had to wait several weeks
before they would get a hearing before a particular Board in order to get things done. We
talked at that time to the. Planning Board to the Zoning Board to the general Town we had
not one or two public meetings here we all got together and talked about these kinds of problems
as I say we have already made some changes in the past to try to help the process. It's come
to my attention that the Zoning Board is even looking at an expedited agenda process to try
to get some of the things through the mill never once trying to improve the integrity of our
environmental concern or in any other way upset the good things that have been done just
to make the system work better make it work more quickly, yes or no, but make it work more
quickly. Several weeks ago when the Town Board was reviewing a number of situations it was
discovered that when we looked back at the reason we hired a Zoning Administrator, I believe
its about two years ago, but I've lost track of time entirely the reason we hired a Zoning
Administrator was so that decisions could be made quickly impartially when individuals came
in to talk about a particular project on a pagicular parcel of property. The Zoning Administrator
would look at the rules and regulations and make a determination as to whether that use was
appropriate and permitted as it was. If it was by all means the next step would be for the
Building Department to issue a building permit and away we go. If for any reason there was
a problem if setbacks weren't right as proposed or if the lot size wasn't right or anything then
the decision would be, well it sounds like a good project but it has to go for review by the
appropriate organization. To the best of our knowledge that was working until it came to
our attention that from time to time after
c�� r
people had gone out and made their decisions and started their projects a hitch developed
somewhere along the line and somebody made another interpretation and said the original
decisions wasn't right and we said gee, that's really not fair to the public because they've come
in. In all good sense have taken the steps that have been set up and they've gotten an answer
and acted on it now they're being told maybe its not right. Our attempt with this proposed
amendment is to make the system work is to say that we have a Zoning Administrator who
should do zoning administration its to recognize the fact when this zoning administrator was
hired she was a new person who was unfamiliar with the Town. We tried to determine at that
time whether this position should go in the Planning Department or the Building and Code
Enforcement Department we opted for the Building and Code Enforcement Department with
the thought there is a place where it might logically fit. It really doesn't seem now that it
fits there it really seems that the position should be by itself that the person who is being
paid to perform this job should be permitted to perform that job give a determination. Again,
if the determination is no people have a right to go through and must by law go through the
steps that are set forth. The regulation as proposed changes only one thing it says, that
individuals go to the Zoning Administrator to get an answer. The way it currently is the people
come to the Zoning Administrator who then may later be overruled by the Director of Building
and Code Enforcement the way it currently is written and there is even some questions about
that if you look at the legalities of it, but that's the way its been happening we would like
to stream line that process. People are commenting I know, that perhaps the Zoning
Administrator will make a mistake, maybe she will or maybe he will whoever is in that job
at that time this sometimes happens the Director of Building and Code Enforcement sometimes
makes a mistake he is the boss of the department he is the department head, I make mistakes
everybody at sometime makes a mistake. The way the Zoning Ordinance is now mistakes can't
be too great as best as I can see them I've taken a close look at it and almost everything and
almost every zone requires a site plan review how far off can anyone go. People are concerned
at least its been in the newspaper there is a concern that people will be inappropriately solicited
with money and other favors and people will try to do all kinds of terrible things let me tell
you if you don't know all ready that can happen at any level of any government hopefully it
won't here. If it does ever happen here if there is any suspicion there will be an investigation
and appropriate action will be taken for anyone at any level we don't do business that way
I prefer to think that people will act in good faith and do their job as best as they possible
can. That's the background of the proposed change it is in no way an attempt to take power
or authority from any existing Boards, in no way an attempt to change anything that has been
out there, Boards will continue to see everything that they've seen before. With that said,
please state your name, address, and or affiliation and let's here from you.
TED TURNER-Chairman of Zoning Board of Appeals, speaking on behalf of the Zoning Board
and Planning Board on the proposed Local Law. As you know we held a special meeting on _
November 12th, 1990 between the Zoning Board and Planning Board. The meeting generated
some twenty seven pages of comments related to the position of Zoning Administrator and
the duties of that position of which copies were submitted to your Board. From that meeting
a resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote of those present six from Planning four from
the Zoning Board of Appeals, let me read the resolution that adopted.
Introduced by Nicholas Caimano, Planning Board and seconded by Mrs. Joyce Eggleston, Zoning
Board of Appeals:
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury are
desirous of maintaining a procedure by which adequate reviews of site plans, subdivisions,
and zoning interpretations are done in appropriate ways, and
WHEREAS, the internal checks and balances as currently exist need to be maintained, and
WHEREAS, the position of Zoning Administrator needs to be insulated from political and/or
special interest pressures, and
WHEREAS, the change in the local law as proposed eliminates said internal checks and balances
by vesting power of interpretation in the position of Zoning Administrator without benefit
of appeal by other Boards,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board strongly recommends that
the duties of Zoning Administrator as defined in Article 12, Section 12.010, Zoning Administrator,
be retained as currently written, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that change in local law as proposed be dropped from further consideration.
Duly adopted this 12th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
' AYES: Planning Board: Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. .Caimano, Mr. LaPoint,
Mr. Cartier
{
Zoning Board: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
ABSENT: ,Planning Board: Mr. Hagan } 5
Zoning Board: Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard
MR.. TURNER-Also, we sent you a cover letter, I would like to read:
To Members of the Town Board, Town of Queensbury:
Dear Members:
You recently received a resolution voted unanimously adopted at a joint meeting of the Planning
Board and Zoning Board of Appeals held on Monday, November 19th, 1990. Also included is
a copy of the minutes of that meeting, your reading of those minutes will provide you with
details of the rational and reasons behind the resolution. Our specific concerns can be
highlighted as follows:
1. The decision of the Zoning Administrator should be insulated from political and financial
influence.
2. A system in internal checks and balances must be maintained in the review process. The
power of interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance should reside in the Zoning Board of Appeals
and not in the position occupied by a single individual. The definition and position of Zoning
Administrator should remain as described in the current Ordinance. The power of the Zoning
Administrator should be administrative only and various Boards and Departments should
be an integral part of the appeal process.
We ask that you evaluate.and consider these comments.
MR. TURNER-Thank you. I think we have some other comments from the members in
attendance.
MR. NICK CAIMANO-11 Heinrick Circle, member of the Planning Board. I'd like to, I guess
first of all read Article 12 out of the current regs.
Article 12, Section 12.010 Zoning Administrator
The Zoning Administrator shall have the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions
of this Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator shall be appointed and may be removed at the
pleasure of the Town Board. An appeal from an action, omission, decision or rule by him or
her regarding a requirement of the Ordinance may be made only to the Zoning Board of Appeals
within 30 days of such decision or action.
This is really where I got involved with this thing because in reading this very short paragraph,
I guess I failed to see whether there was anything further needed from a systems standpoint.
The only reason that I heard for the change was a speed up in the system and just a reminder
Steve, that you mentioned in your earlier talk you and the Planning Appeals Board met six,
seven months ago whatever about speeding up the system. Since that time there have been
steps taken, I know the Planning Board has taken many many steps to speed up the system
and for other system failures to this day I don't understand those things didn't reach you until
just recently, so we have tried to speed the system up. Speeding the system at what cost,
I think if you take the personalities out of it and really think about the fact that eleven people
who are non-paid volunteers really acting as advocates of the Town are asking you not to change
this system which because of those eleven or fourteen in the case of both Boards they really
insulate. anyone in an elected position from the potential for abuse. Now, I notice that you
smile, obviously anybody is subject to the potential for abuse, but when you have a group of
people there is less subjectivity to that abuse than if you have "a" single person, not because
that person whoever that person is, is crooked just because there is an insulation process there
and it seems to me that it's a worthwhile process to keep. None of us are elected we're
appointed we can be thrown out at anytime we're not subject to any of those pressures and
having seven of us argue a problem is much better than having one. After all its not what
the person turns down that's going to be a matter of controversy whoever is turned down as
an applicant is going to come before one of the Board's and argue their case its what excepted
that we never get to see :until the hammers and the nails are going up,.and then think about
the problems having to turn around to that applicant and say, I'm,sorry Mr. Applicant or Mrs.
Applicant you can't do this and again, this has nothing to do with personalities it has -to do
with the system. The second cost is one of real money, I sat here a week ago and listened
to a lot of people beat you over the head about an increase at a time when the Governor is
talking. about cutting
I_DL)s
back salaries, laying off people, at a time when there is a real recession in our industry we
are now going to add another layer and pay more money for what purpose. It turns out that
Mr. Hatin has a ten to eleven million dollar short fall as compared to last year in terms of
permits. My department if I'm looking at eleven million dollars worth of short fall in sales
somebody is going to ask me to cut back my staff not increase it, it may not be write I'm just
saying, keep that in mind that's my argument and you can argue back. The point is do we need
to have another layer of bureaucracy in a system which already has too much bureaucracy
as you have said. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you, again. I don't want to take all the floor, but from time
to time as some of these little comments come up its best to answer them right then maybe
you can ask other questions. The comment that will be adding another individual is inaccurate
because this individual has been with us about two years we're just trying to clarify the position. '
The comment that there is an eleven million dollar short fall in a department is really also
distorted because its not like a business being short eleven million dollars in sales volume its
simply a branch of the Town government finding less dollar volume of activity during a period
of time which is not income to the Town, but as Mr. Hatin has explained its actually giving
him a little bit of time to catch up on things that have not previously been done so as I
understand it there not sitting down there with nothing to do and its not really making that
much of a difference in the activities of the department. I've talked with the Planning
Department for instance and I said, gee things should be down and they said no were very full
and we have lots to do, fine so if that's the case in Planning and Mr. Hatin tells me his
department is busy down there and I don't see anybody standing around then I don't believe
it is the same situation where your particular business is down eleven million dollars in sales
volume. We had an unusually busy year last year the busiest and highest dollar volume of activity
in the history of the Town of Queensbury in 1989 the building permits seventy five million dollars,
1988 approximately fifty million dollars, as of the other day I forget it was twenty nine, thirty
million somewhere in that range which is a little bit below last year at this time. I think it
was ten or eleven million below last year at this time, but is not necessarily indicative of a
total drop in business. If that occurs obviously, well, then will have to respond and perhaps
either reassign or lay off some people in some of those departments but, the level of activity
still seems to be there. I really don't see what your saying again, this job has been in existence
for some period of time. In being fair to the public and this is my personnel biggest concern
I think its important for an individual to walk in and say, I want to build a house on this piece
of property talk to "a" person with the title Zoning Administrator and get an answer right
then as to whether its going to be permitted or not permitted or subject to go for further review.
I don't think its appropriate to say to that person, well it looks like its okay, but I've got to
check with another person first and you have to come back in another day or two if I can get
that person or if he is away for a week then you have to come back in a week. 1 don't think
that is appropriate, I don't think it's fair particularly in a case where there is absolutely no
question whatever about the project. Some people would argue in cases where there is a question
well then it will be a concern, but if in the mind of the individual looking at it and making
that initial determination there is no question a single family lot on a three acre piece of
property, a single family house on three acre piece of property zoned appropriately with the
proper setbacks why should there be any reason to wait why not say, okay its fine go on get
your building permit and go home. That's my personal concern and I don't think the Planning
Board is saying to me or to this Board that you want to review each and every applicant for
every building permit that is totally unreasonable. I think what we're saying is that we propose
to keep it exactly the same as it is although it's very simply saying the Zoning Administrator
is the person who makes the decision period that's it. If your concern and some people have
expressed concern some to my face and some behind the back that the Supervisor is going
to tell the Zoning Administrator how to act on these things, please be advised that the Supervisor
is busy with too many other things and I personally only hear about these problems long after
they've already been through two or three stages I don't ever hear about them early and I
certainly would not apply pressure and I don't have any history of doing that. Who would like
to be next? `
MRS. SUSAN GOETZ-resident of Queensbury, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am
on record as -opposing the establishment of the office of Zoning Administrator. I do have a
couple questions though if you should create the position.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Excuse me, just to make the record clear the position is created, was
created a couple years ago. You should know that we have a record of the position of Zoning
Administrator being adopted by the Warren County personnel officer on June 15th, 1977, a__..
description of "the position and all the duties. This is not creating a new position its just
explaining it in the law. 1,
MRS. GOETZ-I'm aware of that, I have a copy of it all. When I read the resolution that's before
you I took the words from it maybe they're wrong, but can I just ask the questions?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sure.
MRS. GOETZ-In light of budget concerns will additional staff be needed to support the position?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No.
MRS. GOETZ-If the job were to be readvertised as a position standing on its own would the
job qualifications be different than they were when advertised for the,way the position is now
as an Assistant Building Inspector?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-To the best of my knowledge it was advertised as Zoning Administrator
it was interviewed as Zoning Administrator and the incumbent passed the civil service' test
for Zoning Administrator in complete compliance with the description as :adoptt-ed .thy Warren
County Personnel Office on-June 15th, 1977.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Actually Steve, our resolution says that we hired tier as Assistant
Building Inspector. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What's the rest of that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-With duties and responsibilities to be that of Zoning Administrator.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That was our decision to place her the particular incumbent in the
Building and Code Enforcement area rather than the Planning Department seem to fit best
there for the specific reasons previously indicated. But, the position itself was established
and all the forms have been signed in years past the historical documents as Zoning
Administrator its been on the payroll that way it's been certified that way for a couple of
years there is no new position being created. I think there is just some communication problem
here some inaccurate information has gotten out piece meal.
MR. J.T. BROTHERS-Taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury. I believe fran what I'm
understanding its more than a matter of communication and I support the Chairman of the
Zoning Board of Appeals is that Mr. Turner?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, it is.
MR. BROTHERS-Because the Board should indeed be empowered to do what the public expects
it to do and its function should not be by passed in any way at all. I believe the office of Zoning
Administrator is being very effectively fulfilled as it is presently organized and I have had
occasion to deal with that person in recent months and she is carrying a good responsibility,
but in no way should the Board of Appeals be, by passed. I speak against a change as you have
suggested. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. If you haven't got a copy of the whole regulation it
specifically says, the rules and regulations and rights of appeal will continue exactly as they
are. That protection is written into the proposed language. Next please.
MR. JOHN MORABITO-I would think that since the fourteen people on these two Zoning Board
of Appeals and so on are appointed by the Town Board, I assume that's correct?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's correct.
MR. MORABITO-If it's an unanimous vote on the part of appointed officials by this Town Board
not to make the change as an average ordinary citizen I have to go with the fourteen members
since they're the ones that deal with this problem day in and day out. If there is a slight delay
and I guess a delay is slight wherever your talking about this is to speed up the process.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sometimes the delay in recent months hasn't been slight, infact the
concern for disagreement for a difference of opinion hasn't arisen sometimes for many weeks,
infact until title has change on some real property.
MR. MORABITO-If that's the price we pay to make sure there is no collusion, there is no this
or not then as a taxpayer I would prefer to wait the couple weeks or three or four weeks.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Again, I have not yet heard or even heard a suggestion of any actual
case related to any kind of collusion or payoffs or anything else. I don't expect that will occur
I don't believe it has occurred its certainly not the intent of anyone to permit that to occur.
1
MR. MORABITO-I don't think anyone is insinuating that it has occurred. I don't think you should
be even thinking about opening it up to that possibility. If your going to give to fourteen people
you either have to have a lot of money or a lot of clout to give to fourteen people, but when
your dealing with one person you only have to deal with one person that possibility certainly
exists and is much greater than dealing with fourteen people.
t.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you for your comment. I think there is still misunderstanding
of what is proposed.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I think there is truly a real lack of communication here. The position
will remain the same, the process will remain the same, its just the fact that the Zoning
Administrator now will have to stand up and be counted for her decisions. I'm having a real
hard time understanding why there seems to be some concern and I'm not going to use the
word interpretation okay, I would much rather use the word decision maybe its a matter of
semantics then maybe we should consider another word. But, the point of fact is that the
only thing this will help in the process is to improve it, it will skip one step. If I'm paying a
woman and she knows what she's doing be it man or woman then certainly she should stand
up and be counted for the decisions that she is making.
DAVID KIN KEY-Town of Queensbury. I guess the one thing I'm hearing tonight is that it is
to stop it from going in front of fourteen other people I don't think that is the case at all.
I think it is stopping it from going in front of one other person the Building and Code
Enforcement Department. If he rules that it has to go before Planning and Zoning it does
and he if rules it doesn't it doesn't so we're not talking about bypassing zoning and planning
we're talking about giving her the power to say, whether it does or doesn't so it's not fourteen
people on the Planning Board and Zoning Board we're dealing with the difference between
the Zoning Administration and the Building and Code Enforcement Administration whether
we need both of them to approve something before an owner of a property can be told yes,
no, they can go out and do something. The way its stated now a Zoning Administrator can
say yes, snd the Code Enforcement can say no, we have a problem. Under today's rules and
regulation; I'm under the impression that the Code Enforcement the final answer is the final
answer. Apparently what the Town Board wants to do now is give the Zoning Administration
that authir-ity, but it doesn't bypass Zoning, it doesn't bypass Planning, all it does is bypass
going to ie Code Enforcement Agency. I'm not saying whether I'm for it or against it, I'm
hearing % -�'re bypassing something we're not bypassing anything the way I hear it we're saying,
this pers( has the ability to stand on her own does not have to have someone else to answer
to.
SUPERVL''OR BORGOS-That's the job for which she was hired.
MR. KINLEY-If the Town Board feels that way, I guess that's the Town Board's decision. Thank
you.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just to answer one of the questions that Nick Caimano brought up
and it wa; an alternative that this Town Board could have considered. We didn't need this
resolution what we could have said was we were in the budget process as you proposed if we're
having a conflict between well we use the names rather than the job between Dave Hatin and
Pat Collars, then perhaps we should give the responsibility back to Dave and eliminate Pat's
job. That would have solved the problem without a public hearing and without a new resolution
and the burden of responsibility would have then been on Dave and some people on this Board
feel maybe with less volume, less building permits, he might be able to handle and then at
some further time we might be able to expand back to that, that's a substantial savings in
dollars. It's distasteful to think about that your eliminating a job your eliminating what you
think your tuilding an organization and building something in your community, but obviously
it is a valid tlternative and that's what we have to deal with. I mean, if we're rationally thinking
people what are all the alternatives and let's make a decision I think it's at least worthy of
at least thinking about.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You take that scenario a little further though Ron, what do you get
back you get �)ack to exactly what everybody is objecting too, to having one person making
a decision. Ue hired a Zoning Administrator because the Building and Code Enforcement
Department wa3 very busy we needed somebody with qualifications we got that person. Now,
people say if oi,e person does it, it will be a one person decision subject to all kinds of things.
If that position is eliminated were back to one person making the decision still subject to all
the potential ah;,se it doesn't change anything the fact is the system seems to be working now.
PETER CARTIEb,-Planning Board. You keep saying, it will be the same, but I don't think it
will be and it gels back to this issue of interpretation. Correct me if I'm wrong, we're not
suggesting we are against the Zoning Administrator's position we are against the fact that,
that Zoning Administrator has the power of decision that cannot be appealed by any other
Board in the Town that is our concern.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That is not what is says.
MR. CARTIER-But, t does.
SUPERVISOR BORC OS-No, it doesn't read it closely.
MR. CARTIER-Sect ion 7 C2. Shall be vested with the Zoning Administrator and be final and
not subject to revie- by any of the Town Department, Official or Employee.
3� 1
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Does not say Board. 'Things can still come to the Zoning Board and
Planning Board just like they always have.
MR. CARTIER-Can that be written in then in that way?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Sure. There is a separate paragraph later, but go ahead and talk.
MR: CARTIER-Just let me finish. You mentioned before that mistakes have been made we're
all going to make mistakes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-All of us do.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think that it just proves the case we have had situations where the
Zoning Administrator decisions have been reversed for real legal reasons and that has happened
because we have had the eternal checks and balances and the way I'm reading this is that those
eternal checks and balances are gone. If your saying to me, that the Board's will still have
the right of appeal then I would like to see that written in there so that there is absolutely
no confusion about that because we're here tonight partly because of the way 'this is written.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think what your hearing is that at least the members of the Board
I hear speaking are saying, we don't care much whether that word is interpretation or initial
decision or whatever what the Zoning Administrator makes that person has to make a decision
to guide the public, where do they do next, what do they do, may they do or not do. The
individual feeling a . . . still can go to the Planning Board or Zoning Board or maybe told must
go to the Zoning Board or Planning Board.
MR. CARTIER-The way I'm reading is this Zoning Board or Planning Board cannot appeal a
decision.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No.
MR. CARTIER-My only request then is if were on the same wave length here it sounds like
it's a shoot-out a communications gap. Can we have a rewritten version of this for us to take
a look at again?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It will no different from the way it is now. Do you know have the
ability to appeal the decision?
MR. CARTIER-The way I interpret this no.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Without this.
MR. CARTIER-Without this sure.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Okay. Then whatever you currently have in terms of rights and authority
by your Boards at the moment you will retain any language change it takes to keep that I'm
sure the Board will agree too. All we're trying to get straight is that the Zoning Administrator
has the ability to make a decision and it isn't going to be questioned three weeks later or the
next day by someone she's working under at the moment. That's the only thing we're talking
about Zoning Administrator just like the Fire Marshal, Fire Marshal makes a decision boom
off he goes it's taken care of that way.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess what I'm asking for then is that this change in the Ordinance be
written so that it is crystal clear so that we don't have this misinterpretation of what is written
here.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, may I interject something because I think I can maybe say
what Pete's getting at and Pete watch what I'm saying in case I'm wrong. I think what's happen
is that the Planning Board has gotten things for site plan review they get in the middle of it
and say, wait a minute this should have gone for variances before it ever came to us why are
we doing this. Right now what they're doing is sending it on to the Zoning Board of Appeals
and what Pete is saying is that he wants to make sure that they don't, what you call speeding
up the process, they don't lose the right when they see an application in front of them that
they believe should have variances. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your saying that iA happening right now.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It has happened.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Right now we have two people.
2�11 a I S`
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, two people haven't been making all the decisions.
MR. CARTIER-But, there is a time delay if it gets to the Planning Board before that situation
comes up that the Planning Board says, wait a minute we can't do this because this has got
to go to Zoning then we have a huge time lapse that has already occurred.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would think that the Planning Department would be picking that
up they set your agendas.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's not their purview.
MR. CARTIER-Your saying the Zoning Administrator is going to do that now.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But, who prepares your agenda? Who prepares comments on everything
coming to you? —
MR. CARTIER-That's the whole point. The way this reads at least the way I'm interpreting
this is an application comes into the Planning Department after the Zoning Administrator
has looked at and somebody in the Planning Department says, wait a minute this thing has
to go for a variance before it can be put on our agenda. The way I'm reading this is that this
eliminates that. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Not at all. It won't change a bit.
MR. CARTIER-Again, I urged you as strongly as I possible can that this thing be rewritten
so these concerns are cleared up.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's why we're holding the public hearing.
MR. CARTIER-Good..
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think Steve, there is another misconception here. It's not the
Planning Department's job when they put something on an agenda to decide whether or not
a variance is needed because the first person who has looked at that is the Zoning Administrator
and that is their job to determine whether or not a variance is needed it's not the Planning
Department to determine that or you've got two or three people doing the same job.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Am I correct in saying the Planning Department prepares the agenda's
for both those Boards? —
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They prepare the agenda, but they prepare on the assumption that
the Zoning Administrator has looked for the need for a variance and has made those decisions.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Don't they also prepare written comments from the Planning
Department?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not of that type, it would be like me second guessing Tom Flaherty
in the Water Department or something or other. The Zoning Administrator has been given
a particular scope of work and that scope of work is not considered I may be wrong, I don't
want to speak for the Planning Department, but you accept the professionalism of that person
and accept the decision that they have made. In otherwords if your looking to prepare your
agenda you got it here that the Zoning Administrator has said this does not require any variances
so your looking for what you look for in the Planning Department what comes under your
jurisdiction and variances are not under their jurisdiction.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The Planning Department from what your saying has nothing under
their jurisdiction.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's not true there are a lot of other things that they have under
their jurisdiction.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As they prepare their comments for the meeting which are comments
and recommendations to advise those Boards, I would like to presume that the Planning
Department is looking for failings looking for errors and omissions that may have happened
and at which time they can simply say, by the way Zoning Administrator you ought to take
another look at this its already been stopped because its on the waiting list to go for an agenda
the Zoning Administrator can be called in can discuss and review and may even change her
mind or his mind it can be taken care of right then and there if there is any concern.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Don't we still have the checks and balances where we meet with
Department Heads?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If that's a direction from the Town Board I'm sure it could be done,
but right now. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I presume that's the way they've been functioning because I've seen
lotstof written comments on proposal.
COUNCILMAN ,MQNTE -But, if the• Zoning OfReer whoever it mayr,.be• pae.!or dvo.people.
'The way we've written° this and I think that the crux. of this it says here.'tbe' Zbriing Ordinance • ..
shall be vested with the Zoning Administrator and be filed not subject to review by .any other
Town Department or Official or Employee. That means that if the Planning Department says,
gee Pat or whoever is in that position I think you have a mistake here and she says, no I don't
that's final.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We're talking about a lot of semantics. I think we all agree with what
we want to do we've just have some problems with some words.
MEMBERS OF AUDIENCE-We don't agree.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We really are here to try to help everybody.
DOROTHY BURNHAM-Boulderwood Drive. I speak from personal experience. I feel that
this particular paragraph is extremely dangerous to both the Town and to the citizens of the
Town. Having just gone through as all of you are aware about seven years legal hassles and
many many hours and many thousands of dollars spent to straighten out a poor decision made
by a prior person in this position.
SUPU RV180a 130AGOALtn 4 dual P010ition.
MRS. BURNHAM-Pardon?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In a dual position.
MRS. BURNHAM-Right. Had no one who would be there to check or perhaps suggest that
there was another way of doing this. I feel very strongly that this could happen again, you
have elections coming up next year you could have an entirely new board, you could have an
entirely new set of employees, you could have an entirely new legal department. I have to
say, thank you to all of you for the assistance that you have given us, however, I think that
this particular paragraph needs work and is extremely dangerous. I would urge you to reconsider
if you only reconsider this particular paragraph. I would urge you to do so and make certain
that this sort of thing does not happen again and I am not the only one to whom it has happened
and I agree that yes, this happened several years ago and steps have been taken in the meantime,
but I want to make certain and it'S not over.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We know that its not over this is exactly why we've restructured things
to work the way they do.
MRS. BURNHAM-But, the way they do now with some checks and balances. Not the way this
reads that this person whoever is in that position has the final authority and no one can question
it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Somebody somewhere has to say, I'm the end of the line the so called
" n
buck stops here person at some point. There is nothing in there that says, the Zoning
Administrator may not consult with the Planning Department, Building and Code Department,
with anybody else they want to.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, it doesn't say they have to either.
MRS. BURNHAM-That was my point why not write that in there after consultation with someone
else.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's why were having a public hearing.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We're almost saying they don't have to when it says, and not subject
to review so it leaves an awful lot up to whatever that person wants to do.
MRS. BURNHAM-I would also like to ask each one of you individually what really precipitated
this change? It seems to have come out of no where I'd like to each what each of you have
to say. Mr. Kurosaka can you say why this change was made or why it was considered?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We hired a Zoning Administrator we just like to have her to her
job.
MRS. BURNHAM-Is that an indication that she isn't?
S
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You have her working under somebody else. I wasn't here when
they hired her as you understand.
MRS. BURNHAM-I'm not really discussing personalities.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I don't disagree with her hiring somebody, pardon me to work
under somebody else. I understand the reasoning for it.
MRS. BURNHAM-My question is why is this change being considered?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Because you have a two step process right now, eliminating ono
step. —
MRS. BURNHAM-Mrs. Potenza.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I think it would be good just to expedite the process. I think that
there is one step that we can do away with. I don't see any additional political or financial
pressures being put on the Zoning Administrator anymore than the Building and Codes Director,
Planning Director, Fire Marshal. I mean there are heads of department in all of our departments
in this Town Board and they're equally responsible to the citizens and I don't see a need to
change that.
MRS. BURNHAM-But, isn't this a change?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-As far as I'm concerned she's standing up and she has got to make
the decisions and she has to be accountable for the decisions she makes.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This very specific timing and that's probably the biggest question the
very specific timing came because we were in the budget process we were reviewing salaries.
We noticed that the Zoning Administrator gets a substantial salary actually greater than most
of the people in the Building and Code Enforcement Department. We said, why and we discussed
the fact that this person is hired for a particular job and that the person should be able to
do the job. Mr. Montesi raised several very specific cases that he felt required us to take
immediate action to change the way were doing things and to have just one person do this
and this would clarify this and would solve some problems that have come up.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-To that end we have four or five instances where Pat made or
decision, Dave made another decision and the decisions were based on the word and incorrectly
so the word interpretation, I interpreted one way he interpreted it another way. We said as
a Board, well if that's the problem let's have one person interpreting it that made some pretty
good sense except that we all use the word interpret which is not what were suppose to do
when your looking at the Ordinances. I was told that the Ordinance is black and white either
it does or doesn't fit and if it doesn't fit it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This has come
because of trying to solve a problem the problem is that we had two people making different
opinions different interpretations. We as a Board, I think I can speak for the Board we said,
we could solve that problem by making one person in charge, I'm not changing my stance I
still think one person ought to be in charge. What I said tonight earlier was while were still
in the budget process we ought to look at that other alternative also. But, were trying to solve
a problem and the problem was two people making decisions when maybe only one should be.
MRS. BURNHAM-I have no argument with two people making decisions and I think if they
can't agree at that point then it should be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Except that if your the person that walks out of this building with
a building permit in your hand and you contract with the builder and he starts to put the footings
in the ground and the next guy comes along and says to you stop you have to go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board because we made an administrative error
in granting you this permit. I'm not saying that, that shouldn't happen but, boy we ought to
try to eliminate that from happening.
MRS. BURNHAM-It should be stopped before it reaches that point that's the point I'm try:
to make. If the Zoning Administrator and the Code Enforcement Officer do not agree ti_
at that point something should be written in to say, all right no building permit is issued.
1
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It is written in. If they do not agree or if they can't understand
the way it's written they send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals it takes time, but it goes to
the Zoning Board of Appeals where twelve people sitting on a board make that determination
of what it should be. I don't want to make light of the job because it is an important job, but
if there is a question in your mind what your suppose to do is send it to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Dorothy, as you probably know I'm the only member of this board
that did not vote to put this up for public hearing. There is a system that I felt worked and
I felt it worked with checks and balances. Now, Ron refers to some decisions that were made
that Dave countermanded. I gave Dave the courtesy of asking him why he made his decisions
and for what reasons. When he told me his reasoning, I frankly fully concurred with him and
I think that we are losing I think consensus, decision making is better than a dictatorial decision
making and I think that's what were losing. I think sometimes and we all do this one of us
looks at something and it seems cut and dry until somebody else says to us, but did you consider
and it makes you look at it in a different light. Now, one of the decision that people question
frankly is right back in the Town Board's lap because of some fussy definitions we got in there.
I really, frankly don't see any justification in this. I would also except if this need was there
the people that work with this Ordinance all the while and see the effect of it are the Zoning
Board of Appeals and the Planning Board and if they saw that our present system was not working
I think they would have come to us and said, here's a system you need to do something about.
Here are two Boards that are charged with very definite jobs, two Boards that have been
insulated by State Law from political pressures as you well know from studies we've done in
the League of Women Voters in our history., I think that if the system was failing those are
the two Boards that would have noticed it and'asked us to do something about it. People talk
about the time element, I don't really think if the system is working correctly there is much
of a time element I think when you get some things that you are questioning the two people
involved sit down and discuss it. You might loss a day or two, but what were losing now if
something goes to the Planning Board and they say, hold it we got to stop this whole process
because this should have had some variances we believe then they send it up to the Zoning
Board of Appeals to see number one, does it need variances, number two, do they have to make
an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get variances so you've really slowed the
process down there. I believe these decisions by consensus we end up with much better decisions.
MRS. BURNHAM-I agree.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I frankly in my area have some results of some of these decisions.
I certainly had some of the results of some of the prior decisions that have ended up in long
court battles several of them and I think the system as we have it set up today works much
much better.
MRS. BURNHAM-There is another aspect of this that I didn't mention. This works very well
for people who are directly involved to the applicant who is applying for whatever. It does
not work for the neighbors who are directly affected because the neighbors have no way of
knowing until the building is up that something has been done. I think that giving one person
this authority without any system of checks and balances is bad. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that we can relate right back to your own case in which
thankfully you were told by a person who did planning did you realize that you had a right to
appeal that decision for the building permit to the Zoning Board of Appeals and I think that
knowledge came to you people almost at the very end of the time in which you could submit
your appeal time wise.
MRS. BURNHAM-No. That was the second very poor decision made by that person. On the
original one we were told by the person in charge that we did not have a right to appeal and
even if we wanted to appeal the legal time of thirty days had elapsed. We were given incorrect
information we missed the time limit we were told we could not appeal that the applicant
could appeal. At that time I had worked somewhat with the planning and zoning, but I hadn't
to the extent that I have now.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That information was given to, you by the person who issued the
permit right?
MRS. BURNHAM-The person who issued the permit told us that. The second permit that was
issued while the first one was under litigation fortunately you had someone in the Town employed
who told us the correct information.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-For the sake of the general public who are here and may not know
I don't want to go into a lot of details, but Mrs. Burnham speaks about a particular situation
that has been going on for many many years with a couple more recent versions. There are
probably four or five of these that have been around since I've been on the Board in 1986 as
much as it is terrible for the people involved considering we have twelve thousand parcels
of property in the Town of Queensbury to have four or five of these problems over a five or
six year period is not a bad percentage. Its unfortunate I say, if it happens to you in your
backyard so to speak then it becomes a real disaster, but percentage wise it is very very small
and were pleased with that. Anyone else for the first time?
JOAN ROBERTSON-Cleverdale. I like to move to a different paragraph what I'm asking for
is a clarification. Section 6, paragraph B. It says here that the Zoning Administrator shall
be appointed by the Town Board as compensation to be fixed by it, and shall serve at the Pleasure
of the Town Board. Now, I understood Steve that you said that this was a civil service position.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's correct.
MRS. ROBERTSON-Now, serving at the pleasure of the Town Board are you taking it out of
civil service?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No. We don't have that power it is a civil service position.
MRS. ROBERTSON-Well, if your displeased with this person you really can't do anything about
it then can you?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have a process it's a lengthy process I understand and a complicated
process, but we do have a process that we can follow for any Town employee as far as I'm
aware.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I only want to say if you talk to the head of the Civil Service he
will tell you that it's very very hard to remove anyone from a civil service job because we
went through as least investigating that possibility for an employee that this Town has.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Fortunately or unfortunately we as Town Board members don't have
the right to decide who is civil service and who isn't. A very simply example, the State Law
permits the Supervisor of a Town of the first class such as Queensbury to appoint both the
Confidential Secretary to the Supervisor and the Bookkeeper for the Town that's always been
a simple appointment no test or anything except last year another part of government civil
service ruled that the Supervisor may appoint both, but one or the other must qualify for civil
service and take the test. Although I have appointed two people one had to be tested one of
those people our Bookkeeper is civil service. Interesting, what happens when the next Supervisor
comes along may that Supervisor then replace the Bookkeeper interesting question.
MRS. ROBERTSON-That's true.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But, we don't have the right to determine who is and who isn't.
MRS. ROBERTSON-At the pleasure of the Board it infers that if you are displeased with this
person you can get rid of them it was just a clarification. But, I would also like to say that
I concur with most of the people who have spoken tonight. I do not feel that there should be
changes of the Ordinances I think this one particular area is a rather dangerous thing to have
so I do concur with them I'd like to express my opinion along those lines, but I was curious
about this. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, I would ask Paul if he would care to comment on that.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The phrase "shall serve at the pleasure of the Town Board" is for lack
of a better saying, I guess a legal phrase if you will, it appears in many in the Town Law and
basically what it does is describe the fact that the Town Board is the Board that has the power
to appoint and create the position as well as ultimately do away with the position. I think
it has been mentioned if the position is civil service although its no problem to do away with
the entire position it is a problem to remove that particular person or not a problem, but there
is a procedure that you have to go through a relatively lengthy procedure you have to meet
certain criteria's to remove that person. But, when you see a phrase such as that "to serve
at the pleasure of the Town Board" your really trying to give an indication as to the overall
setup that you created that you can get rid of the position its not really going to the particular
person that occupies that position.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's exactly what we were referring to. If you eliminated the
position out of the budget then it is. . . Just a clarification because I use the word interpret
and I didn't want to make it sound like there were a lot of problems. Dave Hatin in talking
to me further clarification and I think he talked to some of the Board members said, that if
there is a disagreement between himself and his administrator it happens about ten percent
of the time where there is a conflict or interpretation that doesn't seem like a bad checks
and balance ten percent of the time. Dave is what we would call a hard liner so many times —
when a complaint comes to a Board member it is, whow one went one way and one went the
other way. I don't think I can fault Dave nov after reading the Ordinances myself about being
a hard liner because if it isn't in there then he is suppose to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
That's a change on my position because of all of the controversy that has come up and having
to do some homework and understanding where were coming from.
KARL KRETL-I came here tonight with the idea that I was against this proposal and nothing
has changed my mind. The thing that i put a lot of weight onto we had heard from two members
from the different Boards.' I picked up on what Nick Caimano said, that's what he's afraid
of is not getting the variances that he should get by this arrangement not the ones that come
to him, but he's afraid`of the ones that are going to be bypassed before 'l came here tonight
that was my concern because of the wording of what I've read of having the Zoning Administrator
interpret the rules and regulations. My thought was also.simply this and I came knowing I
didn't know much about it I'm not sure I know to much now, but I also thought if I had a building
that I wanted to erect I would make out an application and if it did not comply with every
rule of the zoning laws that I would have to have a variance this is what I think should be done.
The fact that the two members of the Boards who serve without compensation are willing
to take on this extra burden if you will to listen to these variances means a lot to me. I think
a lot comes out. of having public participation in these public hearings because I have myself
witness as you all have that during public participation facts and figures come out that make
it easier for the Board to make a decision some of these facts and figures if a public hearing
was not heard would never come out and therefore it serves a very good purpose to have this
public participation. I think the procedure has worked very well and I recommend that you
keep it the way it is.
MARY ARTHUR BEEBE-I'm here in two roles one, as Executive Director of the Lake George
Association and also as a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I didn't know what my position
was when I came here tonight, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this I read the thirty
pages of minutes from both the Zoning Board and Planning Board which helped me to certainly
confront the issues in details and the questions and set my mind trying to puzzle out this
problem. I've also been before Planning Boards and not gotten my way and Zoning Boards and
not gotten my way. I've talked a lot today with people who represent developers and also with
people who represent the other side to try to find out what they're doing. In addition we deal
with the Lake George Association with eight Towns and so I have contacts with a lot of people
working in other Zoning and Planning Boards and administrative roles basically for those Towns.
Very frequently it seems as though the title of Zoning and Enforcement Officer is one in most
of the Towns and it also seems that it works extremely well. I'm curious when I hear you saying
that you looked at the salary here and decided there should be a change it seems like a backwards
way of doing it. We have a management problem here that were trying to expedite people
come, I understand to.the Town and can get three different answers to one question, I don't
think creating three different heads of departments is going to solve that problem I think that,
that is really one of the main issues here. In addition I work with someone who used to work
in the position that Betty described as this particular role as being the Assistant to the Zoning
and Building Administrator basically an enforcement man it was all one position and we spend
many hours discussing how that worked. Basically what we've learned is that there was a lot
of dialogue between those two staff people the assistant and the person that she worked under
and that very frequently in that dialogue they identified where they didn't quit see that the
Zoning Ordinance was black and white. It was one who helped too in their questioning make
those decisions more accurate and things went to the Planning Boards and Zoning Boards the
way they should have in the beginning a lot more often because of that dialogue and I think
its very important. I'm not sure that separating the authorities here as distinctly as your
planning to do now and it sounds like quit a change from what you had originally conceived
will expedite things. The one thing that you do differently here is you have this person planned
to report right now to the Zoning Boards as I understand it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Not correct.
MRS. BEEBE-Your proposal is to have them report to the Town Board.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No. The person right now makes a decision and if the Director of
Building and Code Enforcement believes that the decision should be changed then he personally
changes it that doesn't go to anybody else other than Director of Building and Code Enforcement.
MRS. BEEBE-But, it sounds like there is a problem where they don't agree a lot and haven't
talked about it in between.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well, they do talk as I understand it and then the Director of Building
and Code Enforcement as it presently is constituted makes the decision and that's it, it either
stops or it goes on to the Board as he decides.
—' MRS. BEEBE-I think the problem is more management problem that is not necessarily going
to get created and solved by giving this per on more interpretation powers. The idea is where
there is a question the things that are black and white are very easy.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's the question.
MRS. BEEBE-The Zoning Board is suppose to be consulted and there is suppose to be a close
working relationship with that Board.
SUPERVISOR I#ORGOS-Well, yes and no.
MRS. BEEBE-Well, there frequently is.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Its my understanding that the legal way to do this is that "a" person
makes a decision if someone doesn't like that then that person may appeal to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. It does not get discussed with because that's not the process that's not the way
the law is written if I'm correct. Maybe our Attorney can enlighten us.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-To address that issue for you. As the structure is currently run in this
Town as well as many Towns the Zoning Administrator in the first instance makes a decision,
a determination, ruling, anything you want to call it somebody comes to them and says, I want
to do X on my property and they make a decision to decided whether or not you can do X without --
going to any Board without getting any variances or anything if they decide you can do it then
the person goes off and does it. If they decide that they can't do it then that person has the
options to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals and say, well I disagree with the Zoning
Administrator or whoever is running the position at this point we think we can do it or that's
one option they have or they can say, well we agree with the Zoning Administrator we can't
do it, but we like a variance we like you to do something different with your Ordinance. That's
the way it runs now as far as the interpretations go with the exception of the fact that there
are two people involved in the process as the Board has discussed both of which respond to
these issues. Under the proposed plan it would be the same thing only one person would be
the starting point.
MRS. BEEBE-1 think its a mistake to change that. I also think that there are a lot of times
where that person would say, gee I'm not sure and when I'm not sure its best to go before the
Zoning Board if you really want to save yourself some trouble and some time its best to start
right there because there won't be the confusion with other people coming in later after the
fact saying, gee I think that interpretation was incorrect.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think you used the right word you said, it might be a management
problem that were trying to solve. In looking at it too, I thought about what if Dave Hatin
had been a very hard task master and said, nothing goes out of this office no permits are issued
on a daily basis until I review each and every one of them. I mean that was an option that
he had obviously then why have another person in the office doing that he didn't take that
option. I think if there was a mistake made and not to point the finger at anyone, I think the
nasty word that has crept into this has been interpretation because if we took that out and
just looked at it in black and white terms a lot of these problems would have gone to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and not been a conflict, I think.
MRS. BEEBE-I think its that, I agree with you. But, I think its even more than that because
this confusion as to the chain of command. It seems as though when the post was created
there was a concept that this person was to report to the Building and Codes person and that
wasn't totally clear in the job description which I also studied and yet that's what everyone
thought would happen. If that were happening, I don't think you would have that disagreements
they would be sort of identified early on and then those questions were the disagreement would
be made would be the ones that get referred on to the proper Board. Anyway, that is my
perspective having been through it I tend to support the Zoning Board and the Planning Board
suggestion that you take another look at this and not make any changes until its been looked
at more carefully. I think they looked at it very intensively and have been struggling with
it and its a tough decision and I think its hard for you when you have so many other functions
for the Town to really dig in that the proposal to expedite things probably should start with
those two Boards.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-May I just ask you a quick question. I'm delighted that you had a chance
to get through that whole thing how did you find out where it was available and when? How
did you get it because I know of other people who want it and said they couldn't find it.
MRS. BEEBE-Find out what?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How did you get a copy of the minutes of the meeting?
MRS. BEEBE-1 contacted some people that I know and I sent my staff person down to the Town
to pick up those copies.
1
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm glad you were able to get it, but I know other people had said they
didn't know just where to go.
MRS. BEEBE-Well I work with the Boards so I know most of the members on it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, I would think any person the minutes are a matter of public
record.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's correct and they are always available.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Our. Town Clerk would naturally be the person in charge of any
public information aqp you would automatically come to the Town Clerk and say, I would like
a eow,t r- mil s.
TOWN CLERK-No oneaasked me.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The meeting was only held a couple of days ago and I couldn.'t believe
this size minutes were ready that quickly.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think they were ready because of the importance of the situation
in referring to some minutes of our meetings that were much longer I know that there was
a particular organization who called up and said they wanted to be able to read them
immediately.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm glad that they were, I just kind of wish it was noticed somewhere
that they were that quickly available to everyone. I didn't read them until Saturday, Sunday,
and today's Monday.
MR. CHARLES ADAMSON-From Assembly Point. I'll be very brief because what I want to
say has been said before. I have three buz words, Betty, bureaucracy, budget. I think Betty
Monahan has hit it right on the head your better off sir with what you've got now. The
bureaucracy comes from the fact as Mary Arthur says, you've got a management problem
somehow the Zoning Codes Officer should be a Deputy under an office that is managed by
one man, have the authority and there is no reason that I can see that he shouldn't sign off
on anything that goes out, but most of the things will go out because of her speciality with
her only having reviewed them that makes a lot of sense. Still on bureaucracy what doesn't
make sense is you put this person he, she, whoever it is we're not talking about personalities
at this point, you put this person by him or herself and I talked to one of you today for a long
time, George, the point is you said already tonight, oh no there won't be other people involved.
You can't have a department head without a secretary over a period of time the first few months
maybe and then she is going to have to have assistants and so forth, you shake your head it
don't work in the bureaucratic world Steve, you know perfectly well its not proper. It may
be that the person involved now was hired with a misunderstanding maybe the salary would
have to be lowered. I think there is a new term going around the "Dingcans gambit", Dingcans
in New York took a cut, I think that is going to be more and more practical. I think that is
the budget aspect here I think its going to save the Town money to leave things were they
are and money., I think we all agree is a problem. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you very much. Next comment first time around.
MRS. DEBBIE DAVIDSON-I reside on Pickle Hill Road. I think the problem that a lot of us
in the public have with this change is that we see one person given a lot of power we would
feel better if your interest is to streamline the system to take and have to people in power
and either one to have the ability to veto or to send it to the Board of Appeals. I would much
rather see it take three days for a permit to come out of the office then have it come out
wrong and have people suffer for years. I think this would be a more reasonable way to
streamline it, I think it would give everyone in the public a little more security that anyone
who goes for a permit is not necessarily going to walk away with it the same day. I don't think
it hurts to wait three days or five days.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What if we simply and I'm not proposing or advocating this, but what
if we simply indicated that this person after consultation with Director of Building and Code
Enforcement shall make the initial determination?
MRS. DAVIDSON-It sounds like you would be doing the same thing.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-But, this person will make the decision. The other way the Director
of Building and Code Enforcement makes the decision. What if we say, this person after
consultation with and again, I'm just exploring opportunities.
MRS. DAVIDSON-That would be better at least then you would have two people's view, but
you don't give the other person the power to say no.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think your suggestion is better that they both give an opinion
on it if either one disagrees it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals because that means two
people are reading something and they're not reading it in the same way.
MRS. DAVIDS'ON-The other thing that it does is it takes the person who comes in for a permit
goes to one person and talks to them naturally their not going to say, well this neighbor is
not happy or that one has a concern their going to say, this is the permit this is what I want
their going to present their b If that same person is allowed to make a decision right
then without having anyone else to discuss it with, your really leaving them opened to be swayed
without a fair balance.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-I'm having just a small problem and that's the lack of the word
"teamwork" that is going on within our departments and within the Town Office Complex.
The impression that somebody is out there and making decisions and not talking to anybody
and not having any discussions or any input from any departments or department heads or person
I think is wrong. I think that everything that comes in and is done in this Town complex should
be teamwork. I think the head of the Building and Codes Department should talk to the Zoning
Administrator, Planning Department, whatever departments are involved in any of these decision
makings. The fact that this position is going to be somewhere's up on a shelf and have no contact
with anybody and any other department I think is wrong. Right now the Planning Department _
meets with other department heads and decisions are discussed and matters are discussed and
a decision is made I don't see any different with the Zoning Administrator or the Department
of Building and Codes doing the same thing.
MRS. DAVIDSON-I would like to think it would stay that way. I believe it is that way right
now.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-It is and I don't see any reason why it would change to have this
position. . .
MRS. DAVIDSON-Your almost writing it out though.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-No.
MRS. DAVIDSON-Not intentionally, but your leaving it open for a person to get into that position
not presently perhaps, perhaps not for decades, but at a time you leave it open for someone
to get into that position who can put themselves on that pedestal.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Everything is possible we can't make decision on what's going to
happen all we know is what is going on now and the impact it will have on the present and
we're hoping a better impact, a good impact. But, there is nothing that says that perhaps
somewhere along the line were going to have a corrupt official in any department head that
anybody can't be reachable. We just separate the departments give those responsibilities to
those department heads that have the knowledge and have the right to make those
determinations no matter what department it is. This is where I see the Zoning Administrator
doing exactly the same thing that she's doing now you still have the chain of command you
still have the checks and balances you still have the input, but you have one person making
a decision now we have two people making a decision we could have a Board making decisions
somewhere someone has to make a determination.
MRS. DAVIDSON-I understand that, I just feel strongly that the best decision is made by more
than one since that one person is going to approach by the applicant.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-But right now we have somebody making a decision, but we also
have the possibility of those decisions being reversed.
MRS. DAVIDSON-I don't argue that there is a problem in the system. What I'm suggesting
is that a better solution to it is to have two people make that decision before a permit is issued.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me just take a minute and read for your edification the description
of Zoning Administrator that was approved. This is what was approved by the County in 1977.
The general statement of duties: Administers the local Zoning Ordinance and relates State
and Local Laws does related work as required distinguishing features of the class. This position
involves record keeping, public contact, site inspection in the administration of zoning codes.
The work is performed under the general direction of the Town Board and in close cooperation
with the Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeals. Supervision of others is not normally
a function of this position. Examples of work and these are illustrious only it says, receives
and analysis requests for zoning certificates, makes site inspections and obtains additional
information as necessary to pass upon request. Issues zoning certificates or explains reason
for disapprovals, interprets local Zoning Ordinance and related laws, rules and regulations.
Collects fees and maintains files of transactions including inspection findings and final approvals.
Notifies Zoning Ordinances violators of nature violation and required corrective action. Reports
incorrected violations to the Town Board. Processes sewage permit applications and insures
New York State Health Department Review. Reviews requests for variances and zoning category
changes makes recommendations to appropriate officials. Provides technical assistant and
advise to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. May issue a variety of licenses,
permits and certificates, and may testify in court regarding facts about zoning cases. Those
are illustrious there are some interesting words in there the word interrupt showed up, the
word reports to the Town Board showed up, but works closely with the Planning Board and
Zoning Board. This is a complex position, but its interesting that this was written in 1977 and
filed in thirteen years ago and obviously not in response to anything we're talking about. In
fact when .l tilkeed with -the.Town Attorney today about this he had not seen this, but it was
interesting that some of the language he had used from the law books, I presume related to
a lot of what's in,here. I think that's probably how the Civil Service Department created this,
I just found this very interesting.
MR. DAVID HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT-I seem to be
the center of attention for this issue.tonight. I just like to clarify a few things for the public
as well as the Board. I think Ron kind of hit on it on side, but something that this Board should
know, right now I am Zoning Administrator, right now I am the person in charge of Zoning
Administrative decisions that power is invested in me by the way I was hired through resolution.
Pat Collard was hired as Assistant Building Inspector with the duties of Zoning Administrator,
I more or less delegated those powers and duties to her because I do not have the time to sit
_ down with the public during an eight hour day and Pat has handled most of those judgements
when it relates to zoning. The controversy that seems to have arisen here is when there is
something that is not black and white in the Ordinance and this is when Pat and I will sit down
and have a discussion. I will ask her to justify herself, I will throw some facts back at her
and we will bat it around. I think this is where Lynn, mentioned teamwork and that teamwork
shows up and where it pays off, but I ultimately have the authority right now to make that
decision and I think the system has worked well. This Town Board backed me a year and a
half ago when I asked for this position under my Department, this Town Board supported that
and they allowed me to set it up the way I wanted to with no input from the Town Board at
all basically. We established it the way it is right now its worked fine up till now, I realize
it's created some controversy out in the public with your constituents and I've made some
difficult decisions which I knew were not going to be popular at all, but I made them and they
were infact backed up a couple times by the Attorney because I know this Board went to the
Attorney to ask his advise on the matters. I felt that if we don't have the system we currently
have enforce right now that the possibility exists for the mistakes to be greater. Right now
we have two heads, I'm not only saying that I overturn Pat's decisions either there are times
that I don't agree with her right up front, but after talking to her I do agree with her and I
do let her stand on her own and this has happened several times and Pat is here to back that
up if the Board would like to hear from her. We've discussed this at great length because of
the change in this law knowing the controversy that was out there and the feeling of the Board
as well as the public and the Board's themselves. I feel you have a system that works fine
right now, I don't feel that the public is slowed down by the process at all if anything I think
they get a better service out of it. The decisions are made granted Pat may tell them one
thing and the next day after we talk about it, by the way this only occurs after Pat has brought
a subject to me I usually don't go and ask her what's she has done today or what decisions have
you made today, this is after she will come to me and say, what do you think about this or
this happened today what do you think? That's how this whole process usually gets started
and I leave Pat alone as Mr. Montesi said, 90 per cent of the time she is on her own and I trust
her decisions otherwise I wouldn't have let her be in that position this long. But, there is those
10 per cent that do seem to be gray and are not black and white as much as we like to think
this Ordinance is black and white it's not. We deal with it day to day, I know the problems
with it this Board has heard the problems with it at several meetings. I would just like to ask
the Board before you vote on this change in this Local Law to consider something that you
allowed me to do a year and a half ago and establish this position with the way it is established
right now and seriously consider down the road that if you have one person you basically will
leave that person with nobody to go to when they have to make a final decision that person
will have to stand alone. As it stands right now we have two people to bat the ideas around
and it works very well and I think the system has functioned well for the past year and a half.
It has not always been a popular decision with the public, but once again, I think it has stood
it's ground in test of time and I would just like to ask you to keep it the way it is. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Anyone else for the first time? Anyone for the second time?
MRS. GOETZ-Again, Zoning Board of Appeals. I like to ask for your help Paul, because I called
you to just clarify something. I think its an important part of the public hearing to make sure
that the citizens know that the Zoning Board cannot initiate appeal on their own. What's
worrisome to me is that somebody might tell me of a problem and as I understand it and please
correct me if I'm wrong, we would not be able to question we can't initiate appeal. You told
me the other day that the Planning Board is working on a new policy whereby they could bring
something do the Zoning Boards attention. Could you explain that to all of us?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Sure. Currently the Zoning Board does not have what we call "original
jurisdiction" and cannot initiate things on ',its own. It can't do that right now regardless of
any changes that may be proposed when the changes are all made nothing will change it still
does not have original jurisdiction or power to at least initially do something. There is only
one exception to that and that is in the instance where there is a boundary dispute concerning
a zone. The Ordinance that `the Town of Queensbury has drafted and adopted provides that
when there is a boundary dispute then it goes immediately to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for resolution and they will determine how it is to be resolved. Other than that the Board
is what we call ,a Board of Appellate jurisdiction which means that something has to happen
somewhere first before it goes to them. That something can be Dave Hatin ruling that somebody
comes in says, well I like a building permit maybe Dave Hatin says, no I won't grant you a
building permit because the Zoning Ordinance says you can't build a motel there and the guy
or gal may say, well I disagree with you Mr. Hatin, I think the Ordinance says I can build a
motel there. At that point now, we have a dispute and that person has a right to take that
dispute to the Zoning Board of Appeals because they're the Appellate Board they have a right
to reconsider Mr. Hatin's decision. Another example may be that somebody comes in and says,
I want to build a motel on this property and Mr. Hatin says, well no problem the Ordinance
says you can except that the building you want to build is not going to be the proper distant
from the property line therefore, I can't let you build it because the Ordinance says you can't
build it you need what is called a variance. Once again, they can go to the Zoning Board then,
but each instance you'll notice is something that is happening on a administrative level where
that person is being given an initial decision or interpretation. Under the proposed Local Law —
none of that would change that would still be there except that instead of two people making
the initial decision one person would make the initial decision. The second point that Mrs.
Goetz has brought up is that there is a question relative to a new procedure that the Planning
Board is trying to explore or actually has asked me about and I'm currently exploring and that
deals with a concern that many times they get matters before them that they 'don't feel they
have enough background on from the Zoning Administrator in terms of why they did what he
did or she did in a particular situation. It may be that a matter comes to them for a site plan
and they say, gee we think it needs a variance and the problem at that point becomes well,
did the Zoning Administrator consider this or didn't they consider it. The problem we've had
is that because there is nothing in writing no form there before the Planning Board the issue
then becomes how do we get it to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Did the Zoning Administrator
make a initial decision or interpretation that a variance was not needed because if they did
then the Planning Board as a matter of law has the right to immediately appeal to the Zoning
Board disagreeing with the original decision. To help that process out we're generating a form
which the Zoning Administrator will fill out when they review say an application that comes
in for site plan and they will check the boxes down on the form and say, okay I think you need
site plan review your going to need a variance for setback and that's all your going to need
and they may sight a couple of reasons that they feel is appropriate. Now when the application
goes to the Planning Board not only do they have the application, but they have this form that
explains that the Zoning Administrator has taken a look at it. If the Planning Board at that
point says, site plan, variance for a setback, but you know you need another variance a use
variance at that point the Planning Board can say, I disagree with what the Zoning Administrator
did and appeal directly to the Zoning Board for a decision regarding who's right and who's wrong
is the Planning Board right or is the Zoning Administrator right. I will say though under both
systems that are being proposed under the system that currently exists and under the system —
that the Local Law seeks to create none of that changes that will still be in effect in either
case. The only thing that changes once again is a change from a two person position to a one
person position which, of course, that lies within the authority and decision of the Town Board
as to whether or not they want to create that kind of a system. I hope that answers the question.
MR. JAMES HAGAN-Member of Planning Board, I live in Cleverdale. After listening to Marilyn,
after listening to Betty, Dave Hatin and the Town Attorney, I weighed everything that those
four people said and I cannot decipher one single advantage in the proposal that you have before
us. What is here by the man who runs the department by what your member says happens in
a manner of cooperation by the wording of your proposal your destroying of both assets that
this group has working for us now.
MR. CAIMANO-Planning Board. Three quick things. One, excuse me I didn't mean to imply
that you were going to be adding another position, however, you brought up the issue of the
salary was already substantial and therefore you had to fill into the salary.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I didn't say that.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, you sounded like you were going to say that.
. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I said we should be getting our monies worth from this position that
this person make decisions.
MR. CAIMANO-My understanding is that this position now will take a Administrative salary
which means an increase of some substance, if I'm wrong that's fine.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Same salary that's bee there plus the five per cent or whatever.
MR. CAIMANO-Percentage wise, everybody kicks percentage wise around and apparently there
is no great percentage of problems that have come up. Lynn, unfortunately as you can see
here today the laws you make today are for the future and they are tough to overturn. Finally,
I guess I echo Mr. Hagan, I heard almost every member of the Planning and Zoning Boards
talk against this, I've heard members of your own Board talk against this, I've heard people
from the public I don't even know talk against this, an old Italian expression comes to mind
"if it ain't broke don't fix it".
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I. think that's the same in a lot of languages. I wish I had been invited
to that meeting the other night, I think we could have discussed a lot of things there and we
would of come out,of there. . .
MR. CAIMANO-I had the feeling everybody was.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I got a notice in my office the day after stamped in date and signed,
I was not aware of that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Steve, it was my understanding that you talk to Ted Turner the
night of the meeting and we're aware of the meeting?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I called him about six o'clock I was getting ready with my family to
attend the thing at the college with Jerry Solomon, this was long planned with my family to
attend that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I had picked up the notice in my box and I changed my plans to
attend.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I was at the office till 5:00-5:30 p.m. and was not aware of it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It was in our box last Friday.
CAROL PULVER, Planning Board-First question, if Mr. Hatin is against this now after listening
to him I'm assuming he wants to keep everything the way it is how did this all start? I had
assumed that Mr. Hatin thought this was a very good idea and brought it to the Town Board
and the Town Board then started to pursue it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As I explained it before Mr. Montesi, brought it to our attention that
this was a definite problem and he believed this was the best way to do it. He didn't like the
idea that Mr. Hatin was overruling Ms. Collard and this is how it got started.
CAROL PULVER-Again, I thought that Building and Codes was for it.
SUPERVISOR BORGO.S-There are a lot of us who intended to agree by the way once we heard
some of the problems.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-It's funny how people interpret what people hear. I heard Mr. Hagan
come up and make a comment of what I said, I heard what Mr. Hatin said, and I heard Mr.
Caimano, and I got the reverse. I felt that Mr. Hatin came up and said, wait a second this
woman is right or this position is right ninety per cent of the time, ten per cent we discuss
it, right. I just wrote down and said, gee this is amazing ninety per cent of the time the decisions
that are presently made are right, ten percent of the time through teamwork things are discussed
right, so if that's the fact then she should stand up and hold herself accountable for the decisions
that she makes. It's interesting to see how people interpret different things because I'm thinking
as long as she is doing it and she's getting paid for it the only thing she's not doing is being
accountable for those decisions let's make her accountable.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 like to say something to Carol. Everyone said they had a problem
with Dave's decisions this is how it all started, everyone except me let's put it that way. Yet
as I say no one gave Dave the courtesy of calling him to a meeting and saying, Dave we think
these are problems would you please justify this. They started out to fix something before
they knew what the true problems were. I agree with Mary Arthur Beebe and I've said this
before, it really seems to me that the problem is in management it's not in the system we
have now, but it's in the management. I keep hearing about team playing here and I think if
this Town Board had been team players again, they would have invited Dave Hatin to a meeting
to justify his decisions and see if he was on track or not on track.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Such a meeting was held and you were there.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Not with Dave though.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes, it was. 1
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Were you every ask to come in and justify those decisions?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-He came in for a Executive Session.
MR. HATIN-I was not ask about any specific's.
COUNCILMAN ` MONAHAN-I asked you during the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting
why you made those decisions as far as I know that's the only time I ever heard you give an
answer.
MR. HATIN-And I requested an Executive Session.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Cartier next then Ms. Burnham.
MR. CARTIER-Dave offered you one solution and I'd like to offer you another one to consider.
If you would look for a minute on Page 5, Section 6 (a), I can do this in less than three minutes.
Page 5, Section 6, paragraph (a) if you drop the word interpret from the third line, these are
suggestions only. If you go to Page 7, top of Page Item B, drop the whole section of B at the
top. The Section I'm referring to is interpreting the Zoning Ordinance. —
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That (c).
MR. CARTIER-I also have an item its my (d) that says, keeping appropriate records.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's (e) also.
MR. CARTIER-If you drop the word interpretations out of that and leave it so it reads keeping
appropriate records of decisions. One final item the next one down which is Section 7 c 2 ,
I believe if it were to read decisions regarding applicability of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
vested with the Zoning Administrator and shall be made to pick up Steve's idea and consolidation
with Building and Codes Department, and drop the rest of that. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you, very much.
MR. CARTIER-I speak only for myself by the way and not for Planning Board.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Peter, would you repeat that Page 7, Section 2, that you just read
I missed part of that.
MR. CARTIER-Decisions regarding the applicability of the Zoning Ordinance shall be vested
with the Zoning Administrator and shall be made in consultation with Building and Codes
Department period and drop the rest of that section two, I can live with that.
DOROTHY BURNHAM-I won't take any time at all. That was a point that I was going to —
suggest. I think this whole thing has erupted because of the wording of that particular paragraph
where it says, shall be vested with the Zoning Administrator and be final and not subject by
review by any other Town Department and so forth. I think that was the problem and I think
Peter solved it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. I think the public process is working.
DAVID KINNEY-I guess my concern is people saying one person is going to be in charge if
you isolate these two positions, I think what you may do is complicate the situation. If I come
into the Town of Queensbury and buy a piece of property and go to Pat or the Zoning
Administrator and she says, I can do this so therefore its legal everything is fine, I turn around
and buy the property now what do I got to do. I go to the Building Department to get a building
permit he says, no it's not legal. Now all of a sudden I've been told by somebody in the Town
that I can do it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's exactly what has happened.
MR. KINNEY-That is not going to stop it is going to get worse. Now you have a separate office
that has already told me I can do it emphatically it can't be overruled. . He is going to turn
around and not issue a building permit because it's illegal so your complicating the situation.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Under the theory of this plan the Zoning Administrator would issue
a little zoning certificate or something that says, okay let's go. The Building Department
won't have the ability to determine the Zoning Administrator is given the decision and that
is it.
MR. KINNEY-The Zoning Administrator can't make a determination until I file for a building
permit because I can be fifty feet to close to the lot line that wouldn't be known. There are
a lot of things that you have to review of the zoning the way it is now maybe they should
eliminate the situation. The real guy that gives me a building permit and gives me my C.O.
is the Building Department and that who. . .that I'm worried about and possible by creating
another position I would just have another person to go before.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That is exactly what we don't want to do.
MR. KINNEY-That's what your doing possible that'$-'�whAt I'm saying. Your creating another ,
position I still have to go before him to get my building permit and C.O. so I'd,rather have
him involved to begin with. If he is the one who makes the decision in this Town and he does
you know I mean he has to follow rules and regulations, but I have to get a building`permit
from him. If she rules on something and then I in all.good judgement thinks its allowable and
then a month down the road I get a building permit and he finds there was a mistake made
at that point in time were still going to be in the same mess because he's not going to allow
it and there is going to be a lawsuit.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I have to tell you something too, Dave is talking in a very positive
vain about what he'd like to see with the Building Inspector, but on a negative side to you have
to share with us what your biggest fear is when you sign a lease.
MR. KINNEY-That is getting the C.O's.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The guy says, I want to be in by December 15th, what you have to
sweat is am I going to get a C.O.
MR. KINNEY-You don't know, I only control what I can do. I don't know the changes that
are made everyday the different things and that's a fear. I mean you sign a lease with tenants
two months in advance or do anything and they expect you to be open. But, I think this could
be creating another arm of government rather than solving a problem it could protect the
citizens more make it tougher to do. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That is not the intention.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 would say this too, Dave and Paul can correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's say that this goes through as it is the Zoning Administrator tells you, you can build and
Dave says, you can't and if we permit the Zoning Administrator to overrule Dave as Building
Inspector then he is going to be able to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a
determination, am I correct in all this presumption?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's right.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And then were really going to have a mess.
MR. KINNEY-I guess that would be my concern. Your creating two arms that really the final
decision is, can I get a building permit. That's really what in the eye's of the citizens want
to know. When they go before the Zoning Administration they want to know what's legal they
also want to know can I get a building permit that's what they really want to know and can
I get a C.O.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Exactly.
MR. KINNEY-That's his responsibility to give that building permit and C.O. is his responsibility,
guess what those two had better work very close together.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Exactly.
MR. KINNEY-1 don't know that they shouldn't be in the same office then.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-1 don't know if they should have all that power.
MR. KINNEY-Somebody has to have it and I think. somebody has to make that final
determination. The final determination is not, yes I can do it the final determination is that
C.O. I get when I want to open for business or move into my house. Therefore, since he's the
one making that decision it has to be made there and its just the possibility that this could
make that tougher.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Your saying you rather be sure that the guy who is got to give you
the C.O. is on your side to begin with. Some of us know a lot more about what's really happening
out there then we can say and we have to kind of play dumb sometimes and absorb things,
but we know what's happening were going through the process and getting some good ideas.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:40 P.M.
DISCUSSION HELD
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked the Board what was their pleasure?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Feels the suggestions that Mr. Cartier has made are semantics
with the exception of (C-2) decisions regarding the applicability of the Zoning Ordinance shall
be vested with the Zoning Administrator and shall be made in consultation with the Building
and Codes Department.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked Town Attorney if he wished to make comment on why he did
or didn't do certain things or what he feels the impact of Mr. Cartier recommendations would
be?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Stated the first thing the Board may want to consider is that where it
says, the propose languages shall be made in consultation with. Asked if this means that the
Zoning Administrator cannot make a decision if the Building and Codes person is not in
agreement with or just it means that they have to consult with and then they can make the
decision.
MR. CARTIER-Stated what he meant by that is that it is a contemporaneous process when
an application comes in that the Zoning Administrator sits down with the Building and Codes
person and goes through those applications. Thinks this addresses what Mr. Kinney was having
problems with.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked if this should be done with the Director of Building and Codes
and Enforcement or his delegate in the event he is not there?
MR. CARTIER-Stated he would leave this decision up to Mr. Hatin.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked if this would be acceptable?
MR. CARTIER-Doesn't have a problem with this. Stated that he offered a second solution
which was Dave's solution.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Stated his question was assuming this consultation takes place obviously
if everyone i% ki ngreement there is no problem, but if their in disagreement does the Zoning
Administrator then make the final judgement call.
MR. CARTIER-Stated he would leave this up to the Attorney. Stated after consultation with
the Zoning Administrator doesn't know if the decision becomes final because the phrase becomes
final is a concern that it sounds like it cannot be appealed.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Asked if he was saying that, that's the time for it to go to the
Zoning Board if the two of them can't agree.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Stated that the proposal by Mr. Cartier would mean that there would
be a consultation when the application came in after following that consultation the Zoning
Administrator would make a decision whether or not the Building and Codes people agree or
disagree is immaterial the fact is that she's had the consultation then she makes her decision
which is subject to review by the Zoning Board if necessary.
MR. CARTIER-Stated the only concern he has would be that he would much rather get something
down on paper and have people take a look at it again.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked if this meant every application or which ones would Dave
look at?
MR. CARTIER-Feels that Dave could answer this better.
MR. HATIN-Stated that he doesn't review every application that comes through the Zoning
Office or his department. Stated this usually erupts when there is a controversial part of the
Ordinance or something that they can't agree on or she will ask me on something. Stated if
he has to sit down and review every building permit it would slow the process down. Stated
the only difference that you will have out of this system verses what's there now is that Pa*
will have the final decision and he won't.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked if most of Dave's final decisions are ones that go to the Zoning-
Board?
1
MR. HATIN-Stated not necessarily some have gone to the Planning Board.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that when your drafting legislation there is not always this is legal
or not legal type of thing. Legislative in some respect is creative you start with a draft proposal
and re-shape it. Noted his job as the Town Attorney is when you come up against the wall
that something is patently illegal I should tell you that. However, if there is a range in the
way you can handle things then I should also advise you of that. This is what were trying to
do here tonight. The suggestions that have been written down in the law are not casted in
stone, Peter's example that I was trying to explore with him because that is permissible too.
Believes that Peter's chief recommendation is to strict the word interpreting, thinks .this is
a good idea in light of the fact of all the confusion the word has caused, but there are other
words that can be substituted for that so that will eliminate the confusion. Noted another
alternative would be to use the exact same language that is currently set forth in the Town
Law everywhere the word interpretation appears.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked the Board where they stood on this.
BOARD-Would like to see the changes drafted first.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked Town Attorney to draft changes.
OPEN FORUM 1010 P.M.
STEVE KELLY, WARD 3-Questioned Councilman Potenza on how she based Mr. Borgos's raise
from the people in Ward 3.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Noted that it probably runs eight opposed to one.
MR. KELLY-Asked if this has changed her vote?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-No.
MR. KELLY-Asked if she is still for the Supervisor's raise?
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Noted that two years ago the Board went on record supporting a
salary for the position of Supervisor for the Town of Queensbury of $58.000. Noted as a member
of the Board she put her vote to that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that she was not one of the Board members who agreed
to this figure.
JOHN CORDES-Town of Queensbury. Feels that the Town is at the point where they need
professional management. Questioned Supervisor Borgos about setting his salary.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted the law requires him to set the salary as the Budget Officer.
MR. CORDES-Asked as the Budget Officer does he have the power to appoint a committee
to evaluate it and then do you take what the committee says.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted he would be willing to have an outside group to make
recommendations.
MR. CORDES-Feels the Board is setting a bad precedent with setting a high salary based on
what Supervisor Borgos is doing. Noted the street sign on Reservoir Drive is spelled wrong.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted this will be taken care of.
MR. JOHN MORABITO-Ward 3, Queensbury. Noted he doesn't have any opposition to the total
salary that is offered for the Supervisor, not sure that the Supervisor works 90 hours a week.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that 55-70 hours a week is a normal routine and 90 hours six,
eight, ten times a year not every week.
MR. MORABITO-Noted what he objects to is the total percentage of increase since Supervisor
Borgos has been elected. Noted his second objection is when you see that taxes won't be raised,
but you see that people's salaries are going up. Noted that he read in the newspaper that
Supervisor Borgos has reconsidered his raise, asked if there is $58,000 in the budget.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that there can't be anymore changes if any unless the Board
votes on a change.
MR. MORABITO-Also noted the Councilman's salaries noted your talking about 100 per cent
raise in three years. Thinks the amount of time that the Councilman puts on the job warrants
this type of salary. Noted the Board should give some thought with going through with a 100
percent increase over a three year period.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Commented on the salary issue. Noted that it's not for him, but for
the position.
MR. MORABITO-Noted he feels the Supervisor is doing a good job. Noted that there has been
a relatively large out lay of money for technical and administrative help necessary to cope
with all these different problems, doesn't know what the budget increase has been in the last
three years. Asked what has been the increase in the total Queensbury budget over the course
of the last three years.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that he wouldn't have the figure for the three years period,
but that this year over last year has been a fraction of a percent. Supervisor Borgos read
into the record a letter from the Accounting Department.
MR. MORABITO-Stated he hasn't heard anybody say taxes have decreased since 1987 to 1990.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the taxes went down between 1988 and 1989, stayed constant
for 1989-1990 and proposed for 1991 this is in actual dollars, in real dollars it has actually
decreased because of inflation. Noted that the total revenues will be projected to decrease
for next year. Noted that their able to provide the same services today with less money with
more people than they did several years ago.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Referred to Accounting Departments letter. Noted that some
of the things that they pointed out were things that happened while they were changing from
a manual to a computer system.
STEPHEN SUTTON-Taxpayer in the Town. Received letter recently about sales tax, noted
it is a very important part of the budget proceedings. Asked what happens when the sales
tax revenues drop?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that they have talked to Department Heads and Union Officials
about reducing overtime hours and cutting back if they have to adjust they can accordingly.
DAVID KINNEY-Noted that we are in a recession and that we have to prepare for it as business
people and hope that the Town of Queensbury prepares for it as a business community.
ROGER LAFOUNTAIN-Asked how does the State of New York determine what part of the
sales tax money goes to Queensbury, asked if it goes by the zip code?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that there is a special sales tax form that says, Warren Count
or Glens Falls.
MR. LAFOUNTAIN-Asked if they are suppose to be it under Warren County?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Yes.
MR. LAFOUNTAIN-Asked how they determine what part goes to Queensbury?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted it goes to Warren County. Warren County gets a report that
says, so much goes to Warren County so much to Glens Falls. Everything that Glens Falls
raises goes to Glens Falls the difference goes to Warren County. Noted that out of the 7 percent
4 percent goes to the State, 3 percent to the County, the County keeps half they then the
remaining half gets split up among the Towns on the basis of assessed valuation in each
community.
MR. LAFOUNTAIN-Noted that anyone who lives in Queensbury should have a 12804 zip code.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that only the Post Office can do this.
MR. LAFOUNTAIN-Noted that when you drive up the Northway near Exit 19 it doesn't say
Queensbury Exit. Noted that this is something the Town Board should try and get changed
through the State.
CLOSED 10:50 P.M.
BUDGET 10:51 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted the following changes in the Budget:
TOWN CLERK
A1051410119 to $37,000.00
GENERAL
A2258020474 to $5,000.00
A2351680203 to $5,000.00
A2351680210 to $35,000.00
A2351910440 to $130,000.00
A2359060800 to $340,000.00
A2359089800 to $500.00
A2359730600 to $65,500.00
A0851345115 to $3,000.00
A2357410440 to $221,100.00
A2357450440 to $17,000.00
A2357520440 to $17,000.00
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
D1659060800 to $240,000.00
D1659089800 to $500.00
D1659730600 to $30,000.00
D1659730700 to $10,500.00
FIRE CONTRACT
F2853410441 to $1,364,750.00
LANDFILL
J12659060800 to $40,000.00
J12659089800 to $100.00
SEWER DISTRICTS
513859730600 to $800.00
513859730700 to $550.00
543858130442 to $190,000.00
S43858130483 to $5,000.00
543859030800 to $6,500.00
543859089800 to $100.00
WATER DEPARTMENT
W12759060800 to $170,000.00
W12759089800 to $500.00
4
W12759730600 to $58,541.00
1
W12759730700 to $66,061.00
W52759710600 to Zero
W52759710700 to Zero
d
W52758310440 to $500.00
REVENUES
A2333001 to $235,000.00
F2831001 to $1,765,228.00
543830599 to $50,000.00
S43832128 to $3,000.00
S43832401 to $5,000.00
DISCUSSION HELD
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Noted that he has received comments concerning the Supervisor's
salary and that 85-90 percent were against raising the Supervisor's salary only and 20 percent
of those people were adamant about no raises at all, but 80 percent said keep a reasonable
raise. Noted that he still thinks personally $58,000 fits the job for Supervisor, but with the
unstable economy, unemployment and the world situation would be open to any reasonable
compromise. Proposed that you have a 10 percent raise on an off year to hold to the next off
year which would mean the people that are on the Board right now would have to commit to
not giving themselves a raise next year, but in the meantime thinks that they should appoint
an Advisory Committee to suggest a tentative raise if one is recommended.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that she doesn't like raises set for two years. Would like
to see projected salaries next May and have those for two years because then the salary increases
would be coming before an election every single time early in the year so people would know
what they are. Would like to get away from this now that were on the ward system. Noted
that she has received many phone calls in regard to Supervisor's salary.
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1991 TOWN BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 659, 1990,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has met at the time and place specified
in the notice of Public Hearing on the Preliminary Budget and heard all persons desiring to
be heard thereon, and
WHEREAS, Section 27 of the Town Law provides for the setting of salaries of officers and
employees of the Town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that this Town Board does hereby adopt such Preliminary Budget, as amended,
as the Town of Queensbury Annual Budget of 1991 and that such budget shall be entered in
the minutes of the proceedings of the Town Board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the amendments to the Budget shall hereby be as follows:
1. Salaries for Elected Officials Supervisor $53,000.00 per annum, Town Councilman (4) each
$9,500.00 per annum, Town Clerk $37,000.00, Superintendent of Highways $48,000.00 per
annum, Town Justices (2) $23,500.00
TOWN CLERK
2. A1 0 51 41 011 9 to $37,000.00
GENERAL
3. A2258020474 to $5,000.00
1
4. A2351680203 to $5,000.00
5. A2351680210 to $35,000.00
6. A2351910440 to $130,000.00
7. A2359060800 to $340,000.00
8. A2359089800 to $500.00
9. A23597.30600 to $65,500.00
10. A0851345115 to $3,000.0'0
11. A2357410440 to $221,100.00
12. A2357450440 to $17,000.00
13. A2357520440 to $17,000.00
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
14. D1659060800 to $240,000.00
15. D1659089800 to $500.00
16. D1659730600 to $30,000.00
17. D1659730700 to $10,500.00
FIRE CONTRACT
18. F2853410441 to $1,364,750.00
LANDFILL
19. J12659060800 to $40,000.00
20. J12659089800 to $100.00
SEWER DISTRICTS
21. 513859730600 to $800.00
22. 513859730700 to $550.00
23. 543858130442 to $1909000.00
24. 543858130483 to $5,000.00
25. 543859030800 to $6,500.00
26. 543859089800 to $100.00
WATER DEPARTMENT
27. W12759060800 to $170,000.00
28. W12759089800 to $500.00
29. W12759730600 to $58,541.00
30. W12759730700 to $66,061.00
31. W52759710600 to Zero
32. W52759710700 to Zero
33. W52758310440 to $500.00
REVENUES
1
34. A2333001 to $235,000.00
35. F2831001 to $1,765,228.00
36. 543830599 to $50,000.00
37. S43832128,to $3,000.00
38. 543832401 to $5,000.00
and,
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury be authorized to calculate changes
the amount in the Quaker Road Sewer Account for capital, operation and maintenance and
with the understanding that the amount to be raised by taxes for the total general account
shall remain at $494,381.00 and that the Supervisor for the Town of Queensbury be authorized
to make technical changes as needed to assure that the total is maintained, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the 1991 salary
schedule included in the 1991 Adopted Budget, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of this Town shall prepare and certify duplicate copies of
said Annual Budget as adopted by the Town Board together with estimates, if any, adopted
pursuant to Section 202A Subdivision 2 of the Town Law and deliver one copy thereof to the
Supervisor of this Town to be presented by him to the Board of Supervisors of the County.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:Mr. Borgos
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
23 PROVIDING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TAX EXEMPTION
RESOLUTION NO. 660, 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: ---
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, by Ordinance No. 23, as the same has been amended from
time to time, provides for a 50% exemption from Town taxes for owners 65 years of age and
older, whose income does not exceed $12,025.00 per year, and a lesser prorated exemption
from Town taxes for the aforesaid owners whose incomes vary from $12,025.00 to a maximum
of $15,025.00 as more specifically set forth in said Ordinance No. 23, as amended, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been authorized by the New York
State Legislature to increase the income limitation for the partial exemption from Town Real
Property Taxes for persons 65 years of age and older, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may only increase the income limitation
for the partial exemption from Town taxes upon the adoption of an Ordinance or a Local Law
following a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the said Town Board desires to increase the income limitation applicable to the
aforesaid tax exemption and make other additional amendments to the said Ordinance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 130 of the Town Law of the State of New York, a public
hearing will be held on the following, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held concerning the adoption of the aforesaid proposed
Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 23, as afbredescribed, at 7:30 p.m., in the Activities Center
of the Town of Queensbury, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York on the 3rd day of December,
1990, at which time all persons interested in the subject matter thereof will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed and authorized
to publish and provide such notice of said public hearing as may be required by law and in
accordance with the form of the notice presented and approved by the Town Board of the Town
of Queensbury as this meeting.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
I
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING
— ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 6619 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering certain
amendments, supplements, changes and/or modifications to the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically considering the following
revisions:
1) Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS - Section 2.020 Definitions - Add a definition for
"ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER" and amend the definition of "GROSS LEASABLE AREA
(GLA)';
2) Article 4 ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS - Section 4.010 Zoning Districts Add
a zoning district entitled "ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER" and create Section 4.020-P
describing said District;
3) Article 7 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
A. Section 7.071 - Off Street Parking Designation - Add criteria for enclosed shopping
center,
B. Section 7.072 - Off Street parking Schedule - Add enclosed shopping center standards
to said Schedule,
C. Section 7.073 - Off Street Loading - Amend requirements to add separate criteria for
Enclosed Shopping Centers.
4) CHANGES OF ZONE - Whereby certain parcels of land owned by Pyramid Company of
Glens Falls Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2), Charles Wood (Town of Queensbury
Tax Map No. 98-1-5.1), and Town of Queensbury (Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 99-1-3)
would be changed as follows:
A. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2 - from Plaza Commercial - 1 Acre to Enclosed Shopping Center 25
Acres;
B. Tax Map No. 98-1-5.1 - from Highway Commercial - 1 Acre to Enclosed Shopping Center
- 25 Acres;
C. Tax Map no. 99-1-3 - from Parkland/Recreational - 42 Acres to Enclosed Shopping Center
- 25 Acres.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town fo Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to
Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify
or repeal the Zoning Ordinance by Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance, it is
necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town bf Queensbury proposes the following Ordinance
which would amend the Zoning Ordinance as indicated:
ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE:
This Ordinance amends Sections 2.020, 4.010, 7.071, 7.072, 7.073 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Enactment of the Ordinance is pursuant to Article II of the
Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New
York, and Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended such that certain property
described herein is rezoned as indicated.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY, THAT:
I. Article 2 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.020, entitled "Definitions"
is hereby amended to include:
ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER- a group of architecturally unified commercial establishments
built on a site which is planned, constructed and managed as a complete operating unit that
is enclosed and roofed, with access to tenant areas generally oriented toward interior corridors.
GROSS LEASABLE AREA (GLA) - the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and
exclusive use, expressed in square feet and measured from the center line of joint partitions
and from the inside faces of exterior walls, provided, however, that gross leasable area shall
not include common mall area, exit corridors, service corridors, storage/maintenance areas,
elevators, escalators, or other common or public places.
To be inserted in correct alphabetical listing; numbers of current definitions shall be adjusted
accordingly.
II. Article 4 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
A). Section 4.010. entitled "Zoning Districts", is hereby amended as follows:
P ESC-25A Enclosed Shopping Center 25 Acres
B). Section 4.020-p ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER ESC-25A
Maximum Density:
At least twenty-five (25) acres will be required to establish any allowable use in a ESC Zone,
up to 12,000 s.f. of gross floor area for single story buildings and 15,000 s.f. for multistory
buildings. An additional 500 s.f. of land area will be required for each 150 gross floor leasable
area, for single-story buildings and 200 s.f. or proportion thereof for multistory buildings.
i
Purpose:
Enclosed Shopping Centers (ESC) are those areas where development exists or is anticipated.
Access points are defined in an effort to create coherent and safe traffic patterns, efficient
loading and unloading, aesthetically pleasing shopping environment and safe pedestrian
circulation.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM MINIMUM PERCENT MAXIMUM
AREA IN WIDTH YARD SETBACKS* OF LOT TO HEIGHT
ACRES IN FEET FRONT SIDE REAR BE PERMEABLE OF
BUILDING (FEET)
25 800 50 30 30 20% 50
*A 50 ft. buffer zone shall be required adjoining residential and industrial zones.
PERMITTED USES ACCESSORY USES
Enclosed Shopping Center 1. Loading Facility
• 2. Parking Facility
3. Ancillary Free Standing
4. Signs as per Queensbury Sign
Ordinance
SITE PLAN REVIEW
1
All uses in ESC Zones will be subject to Site Plan Review.
III. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.071, entitled
"Off-Street Parking Design", is hereby amended as follows:
Off-street parking space shall be required for all buildings constructed, altered, extended
and engaged in use after the effective date of this Ordinance. Each off-street space for
residential and commercial uses (except enclosed shopping centers) shall consist of at least
two hundred (200) square feet and shall be at least ten (10) feet wide by twenty (20) feet
long. Each Off-street space for enclosed shopping centers and industrial uses shall consist
of at least one hundred eighty (180) square feet and.shall be at least nine (9) feet wide and
twenty (20) feet long. Each parking space shall be reached by an access driveway at least
twenty (20) feet clear in width. In addition, space necessary for aisles, maneuvering, safe
pedestrian walkways and drives shall be provided. Parking requirements are specified in
Section 7.072.
IV. Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Section 7.071, entitled "Off-Street
Parking Design", is hereby amended as follows:
C. Except for an enclosed shopping center, any parking lot or parking area that will contain
more than one hundred (100) cars shall be effectively divided by planted divider strips
planted with trees fixed in place so as to effectively divide each parking area of one hundred
(100) cars from another driveway and parking area for the purpose of insuring safety of
vehicles moving within the entire parking area and to control speed. An enclosed shopping
center shall provide planted parking dividers consistent with the above criteria, but the
maximum number of cars within any divided parking area shall not exceed one hundred-fifty
(150) cars.
V. Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.072, entitled "Off Street
Parking Schedule", is hereby amended as follows:
p) Enclosed shopping center:
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Ordinance, enclosed shopping centers shall provide
off-street parking spaces in accordance with the following standards:
(i) Each parking space shall comply with the dimensional requirements set forth in Section
7.071.
(II) The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be calculated as follows:
aa) for enclosed shopping centers greater than four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet
CLA, all parking on the site will be based on five (5.0) spaces per one thousand (1,000)
square feet of GLA
VI. Article 7 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.073, entitled "Off-Street
Loading" is hereby amended as follows:
A) Except as provided in paragraph (B) below, at least one (1) off-street loading space shall
be provided for each commercial or industrial establishment hereafter erected or substantially
altered to have a gross floor area in excess of five thousand (5,000) square feet, computed
as described below. Space for off-street loading shall be in addition to space for off-street
parking.
B) An enclosed shopping center shall provide three (3) off-street loading spaces for each
department store tenant, plus such additional, if any, centralized loading spaces as may be
reasonable necessary to service interior mall tenants, taking into consideration interior service
corridors, traffic and parking patterns, and architectural design.
C) Each off-street loading space shall be subject to the following minimum requirements:
1) Each berth shall be not less than twelve (12) feet wide, forty (40) feet lone and, when
covered, fourteen (14) feet in height.
2) Off-street loading space (or spaces) located within fifty (50 feet of a residential property
shall be shielded by wall, fencing, or other suitable material which shall serve to screen
noise and uncontrolled entrance.
VII. The following parcels of land shall be rezoned to the Enclosed Shopping Center (ESC-25A)
Zone:
A) Tax Map No. 98-1-5.1;
B) Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2; and
C) Tax Map No. 99-1-3.
1
VIII. The Town Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury, adopted pursuant to Article 3 of the
Town of Queensbury, adopted pursuant to Article 3 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,
shall be amended to include the Enclosed Shopping Center (ESC 25A) Zone.
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 the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on December 3, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the
Queensbury Activities Center, 531 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 a notice in a form to be approved
by the Town Attorney for purposes of publication is 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 .Attorney of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and
directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the
Town of Queensbury, and a copy of this resolution and the written notice previously described
to be in a form approved by the Town Attorney, to be delivered 10 days prior to the following:
Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, City of Glens Falls,
by service upon the City Clerk, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary
to give written notice to pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law of the State of New York,
the zoning regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York,
and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized
and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and a copy
of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and that copies of the Ordinance, this resolution and
copies of the notices be given to said agencies unless said agencies already have copies of
the same.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
DISCUSSION HELD
MRS. MONAHAN-I think that several changes in this ought to be discussed, I'm not content
with this in the form that has gone.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-At the public hearing we can certainly discuss that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My only thing is Steve, I always like to see these things go to public
hearing as clean as can be.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What specific concerns do you have so we can look at them.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I wonder and again, this is something I would discuss with Paul
the definition of enclosed Shopping Center where it says, and managed as a complete operating
unit, I wonder if the word by one owner/corporation could go in there because you could have
a manager that manages for many,different units, owners I'm talking about.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only thing I'm concerned about is what if you had a mall that was —"
owned by multiple corporations.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm wondering do we want that. This was my whole
point of bringing this up do we want that.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Why not.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's a legal business entity, I would have no objection to that.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think what the language tries to do is give you the concept of it being
managed by one organization or one assembly of organizations or whatever, but yet does not
seek to confine it to one ownership. I think you might not want to do that.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is what I wanted to discuss.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-From a legal standpoint, I think this gives you more flexibility the way
it is written here.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then gross leasable area, now that is going to be in the definition
part it will not just apply to the enclose shopping mall so we have to think how it's going to
affect other shopping areas. We don't have a definition of what is meant by common mall
area and also I'm wondering in that gross leasable area does the area ancillary buildings get
figured into that it doesn't quit say and I think maybe we need to spell it out.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-You could further define the common law area.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have a problem with this word and maybe I'm being terrible picky
where it says, or other common or public places. As far as I'm concerned a public place is
a store the public can go in stores and I think maybe that word public needs to come right
out of there, just to think about.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We keep talking about this ESC zone as being the big stores, you
know we cleared 400,000 square feet and yet under maximum density up there it's Section
4.020 (p) there down to 12,000 square feet of gross floor area and 15,000 square feet for
multistory which is the same thing I think is in plaza commercial I just wonder if that should
be the same. Then down in Purpose it says, access points are defined in an effort to create,
I don't really know what that means. Twenty percent permeable all I want to say to them
and their engineers is that their going to have to prove to me that it should be twenty percent
permeable in an argument it was like that in 1976 or whatever isn't going to set with me because
they have to prove their not going to do any damage to this community by putting that much
extra under roof and not going to thirty percent permeable. I was a little upset at the Planning
Board meeting when the Planning Board said to the Town prove the thirty percent, I think
it's up to the applicant to prove the twenty percent.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I just like to point out Betty, in that regard if we continue to put more
which I think are unreasonable burdens on this developer in these tough economic times when
were short of sales tax we going to lose this project and were going to lose $300,000 here is
sales tax, were going to lose 200 jobs, I think your over burdening.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They can prove it to me, but I want it proved.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Maybe the cost of that proof would be that they go to another
community.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My concern is what is it going to cost us if we run into a surface
water mess like Lynn ran into over in her ward in Colonial Court. I mean we have Halfway
Brook down there and an awful lot pouring towards it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's exactly why you have sewers and the mall has professional
engineers subject to the review of the Town engineers and subject to review of the Planning
Board to take care of the water runoff.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would like to see how they're justifying the twenty percent that's
all I'm asking for. You asked me what my concerns are I'm just telling you. Permitted uses,
I don't understand why under permitted uses we've changed that from the rest of our Zoning
Ordinance when all the rest of them say, C Type 2 uses if we did it the same it would read,
all uses in the ESC (25) acre zoning will be subject to site review. Then on the other side
accessory uses where it says, ancillary free standing, I'm assuming we mean ancillary free
standing buildings is that a blank check to allow them to put up as many buildings as they want
to or is there going to be some kind of a formula in proportion to the enclosed mall area?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think your talking about something such as Friendly Ice Cream which
is free standing ancillary use.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 think they've talked that they might want a bank and I've been
in others where big grocery stores are the ancillary building.
SUPERVISOR BORG OS-Realistically a grocery store won't fit on that parcel.
r
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, we are also creating a zone that can also be a precedent for
the same type of thing in another area of Town.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm just wondering if they're specifically referring to the Friendly
Store just so it becomes a conforming use and they don't end up with a nonconforming use
maybe this is something that could be addressed.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-These are just the things that I need to have answered. The parking,
I have just asked and they know that I have asked for this for that whole report to see if this
size just doesn't apply to compact cars and stuff. The other one is that an enclosed shopping
center shall provide three off-street loading spaces for each department store tenant, plus
such additional, if any, centralized loading spaces as may be reasonable necessary to servic
interior mall tenants, taking it into consideration interior service corridors, traffic and parkin
patterns, and architectural design. Some of the exterior mall are not all going to be departmer
stores they're going to be little stores and how do they get counted and taken care of they
kind of got loss in the shuffle.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-My understanding is from what I heard that night at the Planning Board
meeting was that the major department stores they need the loading ramps because they have
volumes of things coming in, frequent shipments and they need to be able to receive them.
The other stores that are located in the mall it's my understanding they receive their shipments
right through the center of the mall rights down the hallways and this would include those
stores that are along the sides as well.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I would assume, but as I said as I read this they don't
mention it.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I see, you say they talk about interior mall tenants. . .
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They talk about department stores, but they don't the exterior
stores. As I said, I was up there one time saw one of the restaurants unloading in the fire lane
and coming in the regular doors.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Don't most malls have a common entrance for eight or ten stores?
LOU GAGLIANO-A public door or a storage door?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-A storage door. They may not have a loading dock, but there &
doorways that go into the mall that service eight or nine stores.
LOU GAGLIANO-We do have specific service doors that handle the quadrant.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm kind of questioning the writing that is in there rather than
what you do perhaps.
LOU GAGLIANO-Again, the language in there is proposed language and I'm glad your taking
the time to go through it. . .
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other comments? Okay, so we know at least what we're looking
at the next time. I just like to ask our opinion of our Attorney, any of the comments proposed
by Mrs. Monahan do you think are substantial enough to require an additional public hearing
or should we take a moment to look back and change some of what is being advertised here?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is exactly what is on my mind.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think some of them are evaluation.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is it your intent at the public hearing to request an additional public
hearing based on what you see or think you might see? I'm asking Mrs. Monahan because she
knows best what she is thinking about. I'd rather get it cleaned it up if necessary hold a meeting
next week to set a public hearing so we don't lose time. I think it is important for this
community that this project be built as quickly as possible.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-This is way I brought it up and took the time to read it becaL_.
I do tend to take and analysis these things.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I just want to know if there is anything there that we feel is so
substantial that well be spinning our wheels at another meeting December 3rd, and having
to wait to the end of December or January.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-My feeling is if we can address these at the time of the public
hearing I don't have any problem, but it's up to Paul to decided whether or not it's substantial
enough so that we don't have to do another one.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I'll tell you, I think the more cautious approach may be if the Board is
willing to meet next week to do it next week only because not only do you have some changes
your proposing tonight, but also the Planning Board is meeting tomorrow night and they may
have some further things that may change this around a little bit and maybe hammer out a.
final proposal that everybody likes.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF GLENS.FALLS
RESOLUTION NO. 662, 1990 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, the City of Glens Falls has submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
for its consideration, a Transportation Agreement which provides for the delivery of regular,
public service transportation to, through, and among the corporate limits and locations of
the Town of Queensbury, City of Glens Falls, and other adjacent municipalities, and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Agreement is for a period commencing on January 1, 1991 and
shall end on December 31, 1992 and provides for the initial payment by the Town of Queensbury
of $41,377.00 towards anticipated operation general expenses for the period January 1, 1991
through December 31, 1991 as set forth in the attached APPENDIX A. The Town of Queensbury
shall thereafter pay to the City its proportionate share of the annual capital and expense budget
and contribute to this payment of all other reasonable and necessary liabilities incurred by
the City, and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Agreement establishes public service transportation throughout
the Town of Queensbury and which public service transportation will be beneficial to and serve
the public interest of the people of the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the'Town Board on behalf of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the
Transportation Agreement as presented to this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute
the aforesaid Transportation Agreement.
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL FROM RECREATION ASSESSMENT RESERVE
FUND
RESOLUTION NO. 663, 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously established a Capital
Reserve Fund known as the "Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund," and bearing the accounting
verification number of Rll, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of transferring $46,000.00
from the aforesaid Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund, No.: Rll, into the Hovey Pond Park
Account, No.: H482057310.300, and $38,000.00 from the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund,
No.: Rll, into the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Account, No.: H472057310.300, and
WHEREAS, the total sum to be transferred from the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund,
No.: Rll, $84,000.00, will be expended for improvements to be made at Hovey Pond Park and
Ridge/Jenkinsville Park as follows:
1. Hovey Pond Park - development of a smaller, deeper pond and additional park open areas
(architectural and labor costs) and
2. Ridge/Jenkinsville Park - Phase II project development services (services needed for project
will be architectural design services, engineering design services, construction services,
and consulting services) and park landscaping improvements,
said improvements to benefit the entire community, including those subdivision and multifamily
developments, the developers of which have previously paid fees in lieu of dedicating land
for recreational purposes as required by law, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized by Section 6(c) of the
General Municipal Law of the State of New York to withdraw and expend funds from the
aforesaid Capital Reserve Fund known as the Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund, in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
i
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes a withdrawal
and expenditure from the aforesaid Capital Reserve Fund known as the Recreation Assessment
Reserve Fund, in the total amount of $84,000.00, $46,000.00 to be deposited in the Hovey Pond
Park Account, No.: H482057310.300, and $38,000.00 to be deposited in the Ridge/Jenkinsville
Park Account No.: H472057310.300, to make improvements at the Hovey Pond and
Ridge/Jenkinsville Parks, respectively, and
BE IT FURTHER, s
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby further directs that in
the event there are any funds remaining in the said Hovey Pond Park Account and Ridge
Jenkinsville Park Account, after the completion of the projects or in the event that said projects
are not undertaken, the moneys in the said accounts shall be returned to the Capital Reserve
Fund (Recreation Assessment Reserve Fund), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby further finds that the
withdrawals and expenditures for the previously identified recreation projects at Hovey Pond
Park and the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park are expenditures for improvements or items of equipment
for which the Reserve Account was established, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the $84,000.00
total amount transferred from the Capital Reserve Fund, Recreation Assessment Reserve
Fund, shall be used to improve the Hovey Pond Park and Ridge/Jenkinsville Park (improvements
as specified in the preambles hereof) which are existing parks, and that it will serve the Town's
residential neighborhoods and subdivisions and multifamily dwellings, the developers of which
have heretofore contributed fees in lieu of developing recreational areas, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in accordance
with the provisions of Article 7 of the Town Law and the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury
is hereby authorized and directed to publish and post such notices and take such other actions
as may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 664, 1990 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers to funds, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office
and the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as listed below:
TOWN PLANNING OFFICE
FROM TO AMOUNT
A2258020.185 A2258020.106 $2,500.00
(Planning Intern) (Clerk)
A2258020.191 A2258020.106 $ 900.00
(Sr. Typists/3 FT) (Clerk)
ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
I
FROM TO AMOUNT
A-03-5-1110-107 A-03-5-1110-106 $18,000.00
(Clerk/PT) (Clerk/PT)
LANDFILL DEPARTMENT
FROM TO AMOUNT
J1-26-5-8160-440 J1-26-5-8160-468 $5,000.00
(Misc. Contractual) (Loader Repairs)
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 6657 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfer of funds, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Account Office and
the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the above mentioned funds is to be used for the purchase of one (10) new
chipper.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 666, 1990 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Water Department desires to transfer certain funds in
the approximate amount of $89,360.00, for the purpose of purchasing property in relation to
the Queensbury Water Plant Expansion and for certain Generator Building Expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Water Department desires to transfer funds of $5,000.00
to pay for the labor of Angelo Abbenante, and
WHEREAS, the funds are needed as there are insufficient funds in the Capital Improvements
Account, W1-27-5-9951-900, and in the Clerk of the Works (Part-Time) Account W1-27-5-8310-121,
and
WHEREAS, there is projected to be sufficient funds in the Unreserved Fund Balance, and
WHEREAS, the transfer of funds has been approved by the Director of Accounting Services
and the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby increases the appropriations
in the Capital Improvements Account, W1-27-5-9951-900, in the amount of $89,360.00, and
increase appropriations in the Clerk of the Works (Part-Time) Account W1-27-5-8310-121 in
the amount of $5,000.00, and the source of said funds shall be the Unreserved Fund Balance
of the Queensbury Water District (WI).
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None ti
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE COMPANY EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
RESOLUTION NO. 667, 1990 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan:
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc., entered into an agreement dated December 30, 1988, and such agreement is still in full
force and effect, and
WHEREAS, said agreement set forth a number of terms and conditions, including an agreement
that the Fire Company would not purchase or enter into any binding contract purchase, any
piece or apparatus of equipment, at a cost exceeding the sum of $50,000.00 without prior
approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., has indicated its desire
to purchase a body for their CF686 Mack Chassis for the sum of approximately $237,000.00,
and
WHEREAS, it is the understanding of the Town Board that the full sum of money involved_
for the purchase will be funded through a loan agreement to be executed with a local banking
institution and repaid from present Town contract monies,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the purchase
of a body for the CF686 Mack Chassis for the approximate sum of $237,000.00 by the Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
ABSTAIN:Mr. Borgos
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPOSAL OF NEWSPAPERS RECEIVED AT TOWN LANDFILL
AND TRANSFER SITES
RESOLUTION NO. 668, 1990 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
l
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury currently receives for disposal, newspapers at its Landfill
and Transfer Station Site, and 1
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously arranged for the disposal
of the newspapers by contract with North American Recycling, for purposes of arranging for
the recycling or disposal of the newspapers by means other than deposit at the Landfill, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid contract with North American Recycling has expired and the Town
Board of the,Town of Queensbury has been notified by Warren County that the said newspapers
will be accepted by the County as part of its recycling program, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to continue to dispose of
newspapers in a manner such that the same will not contribute to the volume of solid waste
currently being placed'.into the Town of Queensbury/City of Glens Falls Joint Landfill,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs
the Town iSupervisor of the Town of Queensbury to arrange for the conveyance and disposal
of all newspapers to Warren County, as part of the County Recycling Program, and further
directs that an agreement concerning such disposition be entered into with the County, with
— the form of the agreement to be approved of by the Town Attorney of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED
WATER DISTRICT ELECTRICAL GENERATOR BUILDING CONTRACT NO. 3 - GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 4 - ELECTRICAL CONTRACT NO. 5 - HEATING AND
VENTILATION
RESOLUTION NO. 669, 1990 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of completing construction
of an Electrical Generator Building for the Water Treatment Plant, Contract Nos. 3, 4, and
5, such Contracts more specifically identified in the proposed Contracts and Bid Documents
submitted to this meeting, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 103 of the General Municipal Law, it is necessary to advertise
for bids and award the said proposed Contracts to the lowest responsible bidders meeting New
York State Statutory Requirements, and the requirements set forth in the Bid Documents
presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that an advertisement for bids for the said Queensbury Consolidated Water District
Electrical Generator Building - CONTRACT NO. 3 - General Construction, CONTRACT NO.
4 Electrical, and CONTRACT NO. 5 - Heating and Ventilation, be published in the official
newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indicate that bids will
be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at any time, until,
but not later than, December 17th, 1990, at 2:00 p.m., and that the bids will be publicly opened
and read at 2:05 p.m., by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement
shall indicate that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall have the right, at its
discretion, to reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids as provided by the laws of the State
of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that Miss Darleen Dougher, Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, is hereby
authorized to open all bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury,
at 2:05 p.m., December 17th, 1990, read the same aloud, and make record of the same as is
customarily done, and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 670,19901ntroduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract November 19th, 1990 and numbering
90-5452 and 90-5522 thru 90-5865 and totaling $127,017.40 is hereby approved.
Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT LETTER FOR LANDS OF CHARLES AND GEORGE SICARD
RESOLUTION NO. 671, 1990 Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the following
letter dated November 16, 1990.
Lee York, Planner
Town of Queensbury
Planning Office
Bay 7 Haviland Roads
Queensbury, New York 12804
RE: Lands of Charles Sicard and George Sicard
Dear Lee:
As requested, I am enclosing for your review two survey maps that pertain to the lands of
Sicard.
Please note that the earlier map done by Surveyor Richard Bennett (September 1986) accurately
portrays all of the land holdings of Mr. Charles Sicard as well as the half acre lot owned by
George Sicard. Mr. Bennett's map is a plot based upon deed descriptions and shows all buildings
and improvements on the easterly portions of the Sicard property.
The larger survey map prepared by Rourke Associates (January 1979 and revised July 25, 1990)
is a working copy which when complete will be our map for presentation to the ZBA and Planning
Board for relief that Mr. Sicard seeks in order to create separate deeded lots to each of the
existing dwellings. Please note that the Rourke map is not complete as it does not show the
Sicard residence and several cottages that are situated adjacent to the Sicard residence. Mr.
Rourke is amending his map to include those premises as well as lake front setbacks, side yard
setbacks and the like.
Mr. George Sicard as owner of lot 24.2 and Mr. Charles Sicard as owner of lot 24.1 seek the
Town Board's action that will correct what believe to be a zoning error. The request is to
allow the two above-mentioned parcels to be included within the WR-lA designation as are
all other shoreline properties lying east of the Glen Lake Road and to the north and south of
the subject parcels.
I expect to be out of town and unable to attend the Town Board Meeting in person which I
am informed is scheduled for the evening of November 19, 1990. We would ask that this letter
be read into the record as our continuing request for the zoning change.
Please emphasize to each of the Town Board Members that this request for zoning
reconsideration has been a long standing and well deserved request. The two Mr. Sicards and
myself pointed out the inconsistency of WR-3A zoning early in the public hearing stage of
the proposed zoning change and despite assurances that our position seemed clear and correct
once the ordinance was adopted the erroneous WR-3A designation was included and superimposed
over the client's property.
We have been before the Planning Board on two occasions and in each instance everyone agreed
that the zoning change as requested is more than appropriate. Additionally, at least a year
ago I presented this matter in person before the Town Board and I believe there was agreement
that this request deserved a favorable vote. It was tabled by the Town Board due to the fact
that the public notice portion of the hearing had inadvertently failed to include references
to George Sicard's small half acre parcel 24.2.
Presumably, all the members of the board remain satisfied that Wr-IA zoning is appropriate
and we would ask that the error be corrected rezoning the premises as WR-IA.
r
It is out intention to proceed immediately should rezoning be granted in an application for
ZBA relief on area and density in order to allow Charles Sicard's transfer of five separate
preexisting dwellings into the names of his adult children four whom have occupied a dwelling
for almost a decade.
We appreciate your recommendations and support in this proposal and look forward to the
Town Boards favorable action.
Very truly yours,
CARUSONE AND MULLER
By:
Michael J. Muller
MJM:jrt
PS: I would appreciate a return of the survey maps after the hearing as the Rourke copy is
incomplete and the Bennett copy is my only map in this version.
No further action, the meeting was ajourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
1