Loading...
1988-06-28 35 TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 28, 1988 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPERVISOR MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN TOWN COUNSEL PAUL DUSEK PRESS: G.F. Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONTESI PUBLIC HEARING-Regarding Cerebral Palsy's Proposal to establish an Intermediate Care Facility NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you like to take a few minutes, please perhaps, and just briefly present the proposal to us, Mrs. Cohen. Just so the general public would have a better idea what is proposed and where it is proposed. I of course have been at meetings with you so I understand. MRS. COHEN-We are United Cerebral Palsy Association of the Tri-Counties and what we are proposing is a home for 12 severally handicapped children, ages birth through 5, , that is always on my mind, that is our other program, ages 5 through 21. The concept of a home situation for the severely disabled is particularly interesting to us, because it connects very closely to our programs that we have on Aviation Road. We are providing educational therapy family support programs for the more severely developmentally disabled children of the area. A very necessary adjunct to the State programing for some of these children is a residential structured, supervised, residential facility. It is very compatible with the expertise we have developed with the more multiply handicapped child, who needs a lot of service. The emphasis is on what we call the medically fragile child, a child who is retarded and physically handicapped with a multiplicity of problems. There is a great benefit for this kind of residential situation for the multiply handicapped where they can get all their services available to them. They will be out of the home during the day in a day programing either in BOCES, an educational program BOCES or within our own facility. It is a method of getting support to their families. Many of these children are medically difficult to care for. By giving a residential facility with proffessionals available at all times, it does give support to a family, and probably will prevent institutionalization, which is one of our main purposes. There are multi purposes for doing the prevention of institutionalization. Among which, is the fact that it will cost less money to take care of that individual within the community then to place them at a Developmental Center. Such which it is obviously the benefit to them, the socialization, the groups together, the whole support system for them so that you can maximize whatever progress, or whatever potential that they do have. Are agency philosophy is not to duplicate any program in the area and there are no other programs available at this point for these multiply disabled children and there certainly is a need for it. I know that there are several questions which appeared in the Post Star, when you scheduled this sort of thing. I am going to answer them before you even have a chance to ask them of us. There was a concern about United Cerebral Palsy over extended itself. We know exactly what we are doing, we have built our program long and slow and careful. This sort of program for these multiply disabled children is just a very natural out growth for what we are planning to do and we obviously have a very firm financial base in terms of managing this kind of program. As far as what we are proposing, it is a residence, it is for 12 children, it is on Dixon Road and there is nothing else that would come onto that property except that single private home. We wouldn't be permitted to put a second home on the property, nor would we be permitted to go beyond 12 clients within that facility. So there is no problem with anything more than what we are actually proposing at this time. It should be a very beautiful home and very homelike. With the living room, the activity areas, because it is such a pretty area, we are planning a screened in porch and patio. Most of these children are not mobile, they will be in wheel chairs. If there is any concern about the control of the children or their safety, the level of functioning of these youngsters, would be such that they would never be out by themselves. They would be always supervised by staff members. It is something that we have planned very carefully for a number of years and we would like to proceed with those plans. Are there any specific questions? 36 COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Marilyn, when you say they are in wheelchairs, are they able to manipulate these wheelchairs? MRS. COHEN-Not necessarily, some may, some may not. They are multiply handicapped, both physically and mentally,some may, there may be some ambulatory children there also. But they will be multiply disabled and very limited. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Thank you Marilyn. I think one of the things that concerned me and you have answered it to my satisfaction. I was concerned that with a four acre parcel that would certainly provide a very nice neighborhood setting for that home and I had a concern of how many more of these homes might be sited there and you answered that for me. MRS. COHEN-We would not be permitted to put another one, even if we wanted to. I'm not sure with the way the land drops that it would be feasible, that even if it could be done. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Not that it would have been a detriment but it was just a concern that what kind of an impact that that would have on the neighborhood. MRS. COHEN-The whole purpose of creating a home like this, is to create a home like atmosphere for the children and therefore you wouldn't put one right next to it. Then you are getting back to the old campus cluster institutionalize sort of thing. It will remain as a single home. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Marilyn, why did you pick that location? Have you had that land for a length of time or.... MRS. COHEN-No, not particularly. We have been looking for a long, long time. One of our first wishes was not to get too far away from Center because of the hope we can have joint use of staff. I spent with, Real Estate agents, I hate to tell you how long, cruising Rueensbury, and one parcel after another, for one reason or another, was not feasible for us. Either it dropped this way, or it was not in the right place, or we also have to have an approval of the State of New York for this. Some of the parcels we looked at they were not... COUNCILMAN POTENZA-My only question was because of the reservoir there and the multi units across the street, and the how the traffic on Dixon Road has built up within the last year or so. MRS. COHEN-We are well aware of it. I looked at one parcel up a little further on the curve of that road and wouldn't even look further. I took one look at it and figured that there is going to be a terrible time getting on and off the road with it. The very fact that this does drop off, there is a beautiful section of this which can be turned into an area that the children. could enjoy and perhaps pass down where ever play area or recreation area for them without alot of disturbance for them because it is wooded. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Only because I am ignorant to the fact, now you said that, you will not be allowed more than twelve, who are the we that tells you that you can't have-more than the twelve residents? MRS. COHEN-The residence is under the supervision and the certification of the New York State Department of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities and there are definite regulations with residences. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Marilyn, who is responsible for transporting these clients as far as door to door pick up? MRS. COHEN-If it is for school and they are school age, it will be the school district, it will be worked out probably with.Rueensbury School District. Because they will then be residential in Rueensbury, to what ever program they are going. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I was wondering if it would be Community Workshop type or... MRS. COHEN-No, I doubt it. Any of our school age children, these will all be school age, I don't know if they will come to us or BOCES, but either way the local school district is legally responsible to arrange the transportation. Most of the local districts have wheel chair buses now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I spoke to Peter Donnelly who is a member of the committee too, and he assured me, I asked him some of the same questions, they have it on hand in terms of the impact on, which ever school district that cost, etc... I feel very comfortable after speaking with Peter. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I assume they will take the children right to the door? 37 MRS. COHEN-Oh yes, yes. Because again it is a matter of rowing a wheel chair onto a lift and up onto a vehicle. They will also be transported that way to special education program. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So the only traffic that you have to worry about in the Bus is getting in and off of Dixon Road to the school or residence? MRS. COHEN-The visibility is fairly good at that particular curb. I go there four times a day, I am up and down the road. But there is a lot of traffic on that road now, and it is subject to be watched for. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-For the benefit of those in the audience who haven't heard this before, I met some time ago, must be two or three weeks ago, with Mrs. Cohen, the architect involved and our Town Attorney to discuss the project. Probably one of the biggest concerns of the entire project, aside from the health and safety issues, which we can't legally address in this particular case, was the fact that there is one remaining single family residence in this area. I expressed concern about the 24 hour operation of the building and what impact that might lave on the peace and tranquility of the home next door. Particularly nights in the middle of night and that kind of thing. At that meeting the architect and Mrs. Cohen both indicated that there should be no problem in screening the parking area from the other neighboring house so that perhaps of couple rows of trees, the lights would not go all the way through and shine on the house and into the windows. That certainly is a big issue. We heard 100 percent cooperation in that area. We don't take into the law, we don't have the right to impose such a condition but we certainly would encourage that if this goes through that that type of consideration be extended. MRS. COHEN-It certainly will be, because as I think I have told everyone else, where I live right now, our neighbors garage is right outside our bedroom window. I am very, very aware of garage doors and cars and door slamming and the rest of it. Mr. Cushing is here tonight and I know that we will do everything we can to keep the noise and activity on the other side or away from it, and as quiet as possible. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. One further comment of general nature. Under the law that relates to this particular type of development, the town is not required to conduct a public hearing, it is an option. The town decided to exercise the option, because of the tremendous consideration throughout the town with all of the developments that are going on, all the zoning concerns. We figured that this would be an opportunity for the public to come and listen and say what they wish to say. Having said that, is there anyone else who wishes to say anything about this particular project? MR. TOM BURKE, 140 Dixon Road-The residence that you mentioned earlier is the one that we own. I have to say that I find this very difficult for my wife and myself to come up infront of the Board. Especially when you have this present project of Mrs. Cohens and it certainly is an admirable one and I think it is good work that the CP people are doing. I think, I don't know if the Board has the background of what my wife and myself have been going through on Dixon Road for the last 31 years. When we bought the property 10 years ago there was nothing around us, absolutely nothing. I would like to show you a map if I might. (submitted map to Supervisor and Board members). It strapped us, because we bought the best of what we could afford, like all homeowners do. In the last 31 years we have, if you see from the map, we have been back and forth to the Planning Board meetings, very regularly. The one thing, throughout all the growth that you see on this map that we insisted upon as much as possible was that we not be made oddball . Oddball, only, not that there is anything wrong with condominium, or a duplex or a Cerebral Palsy, it is just that, right now, out of 55 developable acres, we are the only home left on that road. I might say that, I have notes here, and you are welcome to have a copy of these if you would like. I see it purchasing both of our home sites needed to protect our investment, as a major objection that we may have. We have been through Contractor A proposing duplexes, three to the north, and three to the south. I have them labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 3, 4, and 5 were duplexes and we had no problem with that. ? and 2 were designated single family residences to help protect our interests and our resale value, especially if we shall lose our job or to health or sickness, have to sell our property. I know there are prejudices out there and unfortunately it is a real world and we have to realize that they do exist. If I were to have to sell my home tomorrow, surrounded by no other homes, I would have a problem with that. I would also have a problem financially, could you find a buyer? We would suffer financially. Contractor A, built, but did not build a duplex, it was sold to Contractor, another contractor, and there is one duplex there now. You can see it has been moved 90 degrees in its existing. We just got through, last week, the Town Planning Board meeting, that property was tried to be subdivided and another duplex tried to get in there behind us. The Planning Board turned it down. It was a very unusual split in the property line anyway, it was being forced. Contractor B bought the property, outlined in blue. Called us and approached the Planning Board, tried to get the two duplexes changed, the two home sites changed back into duplexes, that was denied. Now we have another developer, Mrs. Cohen. So you can see we are very sensitive about the homes there, the potential homes sites. Buying both home sites irrevocably changes the character of our neighborhood. If one facility, I see it does not need more than 2 acres of recreational area. We have not contested the 55 acres of development around our home with the exception of these two home sites. Then shortly after that, Dixon Heights came into being. We have not contested Dixon Heights. We went to all the Planning Board meetings and attended a years worth of them to make sure that they developed properly. We would settle for one home site next to our home. Mutual in customary in nature not legal in definition. The recommended plan of action, my wife and myself request that the Town of Queensbury object under Mental Hygiene Law and do not approve the Dixon Road site. Based on, first of all the character of the neighborhood. Two home sites gone leaving only one within 55 acres developed over the 31 years is deplorable. How can anyone do that to one family? One single family home by itself is no neighborhood. My resale potential would be ruined, our home would be reduced to a starter home for somebody and we will have to start again to build our equity. We have 17 years of lifesavings and our only home. The next thing you can object to under the Mental Hygiene Law, is concentration. I see that as one mile away. Forcing 4,000 plus of square footage for a facility and might be maybe plus, we would have to ask Mrs. Cohen because I think there is a garage for about 500 square feet and there is something else. I'm not sure if that is included in the 4 or above 4. Putting this within 150 foot of frontage with most of its land on the site behind it and behind us as you can see from site number 2 from the map, giving them approximate 2 acre recreation area site, actual potential second site. Potential second site is now outside of Queensbury Town Planning Board desires and jurisdiction. I have a question, a difficult question for me to ask. Is the developer misusing Mental Hygiene Law to gain a foot hold for a complex of facilities? We have seen things change before, like that duplex that turned and other things have changed. There is a problem with the driveway on Dixon Heights and nobody seems to know how it ever happened. The main reason for the Mental Hygiene Law is to protect both ICF and homeowners. Once in existence can anyone prevent the second facility or expansions which would be a concentration increase? At that point it would be to late for us because it is there. Question, why does this developer need 4.59 acres for a facility which could easily fit on 14 acres? I think Mrs. Cohen herself told us that she only needed an 11 acre. Number 2, we request that the Town receive our alternate sites, I have a list of alternate sites, and add them if desired and propose them to the developer. Number 3, I will give you the listing of those sites, if the alternate sites are refused we ask the Town to request an immediate hearing before the commissioner to resolve this issue. We are also asking permission to be present at this meeting. I would like to give you a copy of this now, and show you the proposed sites. JUNE BURKE, 14 Dixon Road-We have lived next to this property and seen before, first of all the elevation of Dixon Road change. That has changed the frontage to this lot. I have seen enough developing going on now to know that it is, to a developer only a minor inconvenience. This property, you pace it out from our line, if you go at least 330 feet from our property line without addressing any slope. It was really visible 10 years ago before the brush took over and the trees. I don't understand why this property is being discussed as highly sloping when it is actually very flat for at least 330 feet. It is a gorgeous piece of property. Mrs. Cohen herself has said that and we agree. But we don't agree on is the terrange. MR. BURKE-You'll see this is a map that I have given you as number 5, page 5 of 5. That is the original map from the very first Planning Board meeting that we attended 31 years ago where Mr. Woodbury proposed all the duplexes and you can see the topography of the land. There are pieces of flat in there. Dixon Road was raised, actually the first half of that property of Dixon Road is above that land, and the second half of that property is below that land. If you drive by there you can see that, that is a flat tableau up there. You can walk 330 feet straight before you can even start to get to the edge of a fall. When we first moved there you can see it but you do need binoculars from our house to see the birds on the trees in the back of the field, it is a long way. It is a gorgeous piece of property. There is a lot of land in there. I told you that I had a list of alternate sites, and the first one is A, page 3 of 5. Purchase only 2.31 acres, site no. 1 for CP. If the seller needs to sell all of it, allow the Burkes, that is us, to purchase site no. 2, with the intent to sell it to another single family home owner. If we were against CP, why would we ever want to own property next to them. We are not against CP. We want that home site, that is our only protection. We don't have any alternative, our backs are against the wall. The CP has other alternatives. Plan B is to purchase site no. 3, now selling with the existing duplex on it for 1.73 acres. We tried very carefully when we came up with this list to try and not impact anyone else with this. That Plan B is on the other side of our home. We don't mind being next to CP. That is not the problem, the problem is our lost of at least one home site. Plan C would be to purchase sites 2, possibly and 3. If you look at the large map you will see that the road is fairly straight in there. Probably Plan D, site 3 has the worst curve. Plan D, would be purchased site across the Queensbury School, - the proposed State Police Facility. The ICF would probably have less impact on the neighborhood then the State Police Facility. Plan E, purchase empty lot next to Prospect School, Prospect School is not on the Residential list. I would just like to say one more time, our backs are against the wall, we have no options left to us. I do believe that CP does have several. I thank you very much for your attention. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mr. Burke, may I ask you a question? The original Planning Board map that you have given me, shows you as being the single family home surounded by five 39 duplexes and obviously you went to the-Planning Board meetings-because you had some real concern. That has changed somewhat in the sense that there is only one duplex and there is the potential for two more. If in fact Mr. Woodbury is selling his property on the south side of you. In the interim what has happened is Dixon Heights. So that if this proposal wasn't before the Town Board you would still be the only single family house in between duplexes and quadruplexes. What I am saying is that there were 5 duplexes proposed, then across the street a whole bunch of quadruplexes came in. So you would still, if_nothing changed, you would still be standing alone as the only home. MRS. BURKE-In 1985 when this site plan was proposed, what you see is the site plan proposal: That proposal was not approved. Mr. Woodbury was asked to change one of the two duplex sites to south to a home. He responded by saying he would change both. The Planning Board recorded that and those are on record as being single family homes. They are no longer duplex sites. As of February 1988, when duplexes were brought before the board they were allowed no time. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Just to clarify, site 1 and 2 are single family residents, zoned for single families. You have site 3, 4 and 5 are zoned duplexes, and you have one duplex out of three sites at the present time. MRS. BURKE-That is what we have been trying to say all along. These site plans, ::: people have been trying to change that. The one duplex out of these five sites, was put on sideways on the lot for speculation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Speculation to getting it level in the back. MRS. BURKE-I realized that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-May I ask a question, was this a subdivision? This was a 5 lot subdivision that was approved. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Presently zoned how? MRS. BURKE-It is still zoned UR10. Single family or duplex. But the subdivision of the duplex was denied. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The Planning Board expressed itself by saying in essence we will approve this as a 3 and 2 subdivision, 3 duplexes and 2 residence. SUPERVISOR-The objection here is not the proposed use of the property or the type of use for Cerebral Palsy but rather for the fact that we have talked about before, that the character of the neighborhood will change and leave you with the only single family residence: You have proposed moving this particular facility to one side of you or another but not out of the neighborhood. To preserve that other option. As I have followed these situations across the country through the newspaper, this is an unusual comment that you are making. The more normal comment is, that we don't want that facility in our neighborhood. I am.delighted not to hear that from anyone. This is an interesting situation. I would ask our attorney Mr. Dusek to comment about the legal situation. What are the options opened to the Town Board and to the citizens at this moment? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-May I ask a question first? Mr. Burke, realistically, even if CP agreed to build only on site 1, do you really think that site 2 would find a buyer if single family home now was the character of that neighborhood, which it is? MR. BURKE-Well I guess, I would hope so. Because if I had the opportunity to purchase that land, I would make that purchase and then it would not be anyones problem but my own: I don't think I can do anymore than that. I would hope so, we would be very happy if that were to happen. MRS. BURKE-We didn't think that we would be the only people in Queensbury who wouldn't mind having a CP in our neighborhood. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I wasn't meaning so much as CP, I was thinking as much that you are surrounded by multi-family housing. Because the CP residence would look like a single family residence. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-But it couldn't Betty, it has to be single family residence: COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I am talking about to the left of them, and across the road. MR. BURKE-I would like to say a little about people who live in condominiums. If you ever have a chance to have people in condominiums live next to you, do it. They are wonderful 40 neighbors, they don't do anything. They all have new cars. I think Rueensbury has done a good job with Dixon Road and that section, this could have turned into a nightmare and it is turning out wonderfully. I just hope it turns out wonderfully for us. MRS. BURKE-In response to Mrs. Monahan too, her early question to, being able to sell the land. Last September, a nurse from Dr. Bracho's office came to our house because the land was for sale and she wanted some help in finding the boundaries. They wanted to buy that first 2 acre parcel. When I saw her a few months later, and I asked had she, and she said no, that it was beyond there price, that they had trouble settling on a price for that property with the owner of the land. So 1 know of at least one person who was interested other than us, living on Dixon Road in a single family home. Over the years, we have had several people come to our house asking for our boundaries while the land was still vacant. So we are not wishful thinking, we have had prove of this. COUNCILMAN DUSEK-At this point, we formally object to this facility based on two grounds, one that it would impact the community in that area and also result in a concentration of these type of residences. We have indicated to the Commissioner and also to the United Cerebral Association, this was just done on formal basis until this Public Hearing. At this point it would seem that the legal approach would be to one, approve the location or two, at this point proceed with the objection and the next stop at that point would be that this matter be contested between the parties would result in a hearing before the Commissioner or a Hearing Officer appointed by the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. An alternate plan, though it might however be that the United Cerebral Association would have the power to consider another facility in one of the other areas. I don't think they are forced into a confrontation at this point, so it would appear they would have an option, which they may or may not wish to exercise, and the Town at this point would have two options that I indicated. MRS. BURKE-May I ask Mrs. Cohen a question? When you say that you will not be permitted to put another facility on that property, I take it they are state laws? MRS. COHEN-Yes, by state regulations, we do not have options... MRS. BURKE-No, I mean you said you would never be allowed to put another residence on those four acres, what are the laws saying that you can't do that, where are they found. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you voluntarily stipulate to that, in other words would you voluntarily restrict yourself now and forever to that one? That is what I seem to hear you say before. MRS. COHEN-Yes, I don't think I have an option, because it is already there...including the Prospect School, including the...(noted speaker was not at micro.) MRS. BURKE-1 know but this is a Tri-County organization and a seventy-five square mile town, 1, please do not tell me that 140 Dixon Road the property next to it is your only site that is not, it cannot be your only site, maybe your favorite site, it is a beautiful site I will grant that. ...Since you can only have one facility and there are possibly three hundred and thirty feet of flat land and there are five hundred and two feet of frontage on Dixon Road is there any reason why you have to leave two acres open for recreation and you cannot center that unit a little better? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-1 think we are going to have a response from the architect momentarily. Would you identify yourself for the record, Paul. PAUL CUSHING-My name is Paul Cushing, Cleverdale, I am the architect for the Cerebral Palsy. I would like to put up this map on the board. This particular map is very similar to the one that Mr. Burke pined on the board. The scale is a little different it has a lot more detail information on it. The interesting thing about both maps is that the dotted line that appears on his map, appears on our map also. It is identified in both maps as a sewage set back from a stream and reservoir. What this does effectively is to cut these parcels down into buildable areas plus the fact that along Dixon Road in this zone you have a set back area, now granted that the numbers that the Supervisor was referring to are absolutely correct those are not the buildable portions of this site. The Site number 1 which is approximately 2.6 acres and is too the southern part of this subdivision really you know in rough numbers has a buildable area of approximately 1 acre site number 2 which gives a frontage if approximately 150' raps around their property so that the back 115' that is common with theirs in a practical matter really is not buildable. Then because of the sewage setback and front line setback you only -have 3/4 of an acre. When you add those together you have probably about 1 3/4 Plus or minus acres buildable on the two lots in question. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Paul, one of my thoughts and concerns was pretty much almost opposite what Mr. and Mrs. Burke are suggesting and that was I was delighted that a single family concept, a house, I realize it will hold twelve children but the physical concept and appearance was to be a single family residence in appearance, basically the same concept that the State Police 4 1. have been welcomed into neighborhoods was that they try and keep a single family residence character about their units. I was delighted that they were using so much land so that they shield that and give the appearance, we are using four acres of land up on Aviation Road for the State Police you are using probably five acres of land not all of it buildable but certainly trying to maintain a certain character. I guess that is somewhat concerns me Mr. and Mrs. Burke that I thought with that concept we are going in a good direction in trying to maintain a certain character. PAUL CUSHING-One of the things that has been drumed into our minds as designers and and as architects is that the regulatory agency is insistent, overly so, if anything that this would be a home like single family appearance structure. This truly is by definition legally and every ether way a single family residence. 'OUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think one of the other things that I noticed in your map was that one part of the L does go into the second lot or lot number one has part of the building in it, therefore you have effectively and unequivocally said we are going to follow the density requirements r the Town of Rueensbury we can have one building on each acre and you are pretty much sealing your fate there because you have one building that is almost on half on one or 3/4 on the other. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The Burke's have indicated that they might as an option be satisfied with a guarantee that only one building be placed on that particular piece of property and they have asked that you could center that more if it is a possibility. The land appears not to slope too much at that point. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You may be locked into the driveway location. PAUL CUSHING-Mr. Montesi, you are absolutely correct that the building does go over the line between lot number 1 and lot number 2. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I believe that line is only on paper, common ownership? PAUL CUSHING-When it is sold it becomes on lot. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What I am saying is it is hard for me to legislate that, that will be sold as a single family lot, it may not be a marketable lot, I do not know. PAUL CUSHING-A marketable lot is what anybody wants to buy. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-For a single family residence, because the character of that road is changing there is no question about it. MR. BURKE-Just that one lot is not a marketable lot. You are talking about lot number two. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Either one of them I guess. MR. BURKE-By itself? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I do not mean to be argumentative what I am saying is. MR. BURKE-With the PC unit on lot one for example? ...or today with nothing there? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Today with nothing there it would appear that developers saw fit to try and maximize and I do not mean this in a derogatory sense to minimize the use of the land by putting duplexes on, there are obviously pretty good size lots two acres each. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-UR10 don't forget that means you only have to have 1000 sq. ft. ;o you could throw out the one acre thinking you are misdirecting your thoughts. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You mean that they could put a lot more on it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Absolutely, or they could sell after they go the building up, is our zoning has not changed in the mean time they could sell off what they are not using. Anybody could, however owns it. ... COUNCILMAN MONTESI-One of the other factors too and maybe Paul you could help me, you have located a driveway in what I would consider probably the most important place to put it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Probably the only place. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I do not think a driveway, there are not too many options when you 42 get into lot one for a driveway, I do not know. Isn't that where it gets pretty steep off the road? MR. BURKE-Looking at page 5 of 5 I would have to venture to guess looking at the duplex that was drawn in lot'number one that my guess would be that the D on the duplex on one is ....to the road right there? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is it that far over? MR. BURKE-You have a little dip probably a truck load of gravel because there is a wash that Mr. Naylor left for the run offs, as you go toward our house ok, Dixon Road is higher than our land right at the property line about a foot and a half and then we are on a hill because Dixon Road was built up afoot and a half in front of our house, we used to be on a hill we no longer are. Any car attempting to drive from Dixon Road between that line that I just showed you and the first duplex all the way over to our lot would be going down hill and it starts resorting the other way. If you go past that line that I drew and it kind of goes right through one septic system under the D right there from that line, left you are going down into the proposed lot to the right you would then be going up into it. So you could put a driveway through there to our house. You have half that lot to put the driveways in fact you have sixty foot on lot number 2, frontage that you could put a driveway between the division between lot one and lot two over to that line that I drew. You have plenty of room. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I looked at it when I drove by it yesterday, obviously the lines are not on the grounds. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Mr. Cushing, what is the proposed square footage of the building? MR. CUSHING-The proposed square footage is 4400 square feet, plus a porch of about 500 square feet, and a garage of 500 square feet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-About 5400-5500 square feet, a good size building. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Is this a ranch? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. BURKE-How can that building ever look like a home? How can a building of that size ever look like a home? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Architects can do wonders. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You can drive Bedford Close and the average house there is 4500 square feet. MR. CUSHING-The largest single family residence that I have ever designed was 11,000 square feet. MRS. BURKE-Mr. Montesi, I would like to same something to address about what you said about Dixon Road and the character of Dixon Road. It has been our home for 10 years, it has been our neighborhood for 10 years. I would like to first of all, what is character, character is the combination of qualities or traits that distinguishes an individual or group. Neighborhood is comparatively small populated region or district presenting some quality or character that distinguishes it from other areas. At this point in time if things were to proceed the way they have been planned and approved by the Planning Board, we would have a nice heterogeneous neighborhood in that there would be duplexes, quadruplexes, single family home used as a single family homes. Two of those would make a mixture and a CP unit would blend in. The way I see it or I would like to interpret the Hygiene Laws, are that they have been designed to help facilities of this kind come into neighborhoods who ordinarily the residents would fight to keep them out. But we don't have a neighborhood yet, our neighborhood is still being formed. That is the problem, because if the neighborhood is finished being formed by the tumbling of these 4.59 acres, then we can not seem to agree on the terrain. I think you would have to walk to understand the terrain, and to know Mr. Woodbury would not design two duplex or house sites on terrain that could not support those, the Planning Board would not approve them without knowing that they would not impact water shed area, the reservoir and halfway -- brook, to understand what is going on here. That is, your still giving birth to a neighborhood. If this neighborhood is finished out with these 4.5 acres, no matter how nice it is going to look, with just the CP unit, the distinguishing character of that neighorhood, will be the Burke house. That is not what we want, and we hope the Town will help us finish developing our neighborhood, because we have always enjoyed living there. Despite the fact Dixon Road is busy, we don't live on Dixon Road, we live off Dixon. Thank You. MAL O'HARA-I am a Member of the Board of Cerebral Palsy Association of the Tri-Counties, 43 also an Attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewert and Judge. I am representing Cerebral Palsy here tonight. As Mr. Dusek has indicated, the very strict grounds in which the Town can object to this residence, we would expect that the Town would do its statutory duty in making its determination that they follow those grounds strictly. It is not our burden to prove that this is the only available site in Rueensbury. We have tried to show that we feel it is one of the only available sites in the Town of Rueensbury. We have opted to provide the copies which was provided to the Board but again we don't have to review every other intentional alternative site, although we have indicated on our records several of these do not prove by ... It is our intention to acquire both of these parcels to use them for the residence. It is a residence and it is defined as a residence by state law which proceeds the town zoning law. We feel that the parcel will allow us to have the residential character. Mr. Cushing has also indicated that he feels that the portion of the area that is buildable requires us to have the entire parcel and to have the proper buffer zone. We would ask the Town to make a prompt decision on this, and give us the findings in writing as quickly as possible so that we can take the necessary steps to review them. It would be our intention at this time to go to the next process in the event that the Town issues a formal objection and we don't want to lose the property. I would '.lso point out that the property has been available on the market for sale during a period of tremendous growth and residential development in the Town of Rueensbury, yet has not been purchased and acquired for single family development at this time. We are not responsible for the duplex zoning, we are not responsible for the condominiums across the road. We did not create the situation that leaves the Burkes as the only traditional single family residence in the area. We would like to place our residence there, we want to work with them, we want to be good neighbors, but we feel we are entitled under state law to have this residence here and I think Mr. Dusek will advise you of that, thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mr. Borgos, can I ask Paul, our counsel? Under what grounds can we legally refuse this or approve this, what do we have to prove in order to deny this? COUNSEL DUSEK-I think the first thing that has to be noted under the statue, which is in the Mental Hygiene Law it covers a particular area, it states that the residence will be considered to be a single family dwelling for purposes of local ordinances and laws. So there is no contest there as far as whether it is a single family residence or is not. It automatically qualifies. The only grounds upon which we could object to this, and grounds that we would have to prove, is one, we would have to show that there is a concentration of these type of facilities, actually in particular, the concentration of community residential facilities for the mentally disabled in the municipality or in the area in proximity to the sites selected or the combination of such facilities with the community residents or similar facilities licensed by other agencies. Basically reading from the statue at that point, if that is the very criteria that we have to prove, which is a tough burden to prove that the Town will have. The second part of what we will have to prove in addition to that, is that this particular establishment will change, or substantially alter the nature and the character of the area. That is basically your case. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What it is the wish of the Town Board? Do you wish to consider this for a while, come to it again near the end of the meeting perhaps and then either take an action or table it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I would like to take an action tonight. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I would just like to ask, if we clarify one other thing. I asked the question before, I believe I heard the Burkes say, although they would prefer to have one single family residential lot left, in the alternative they would like some assurance that there would be only one building built now and forever on this property and positioned more near the center. Did hear you say that? MR. BURKE-If we cant have a home next door, then yes. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Did I hear Mrs. Cohen say that she would be willing to live with this? We asked this a couple of times, I don't think we had an answer. MRS. COHEN-There will be only the single 12 person residence on that parcel. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Without any pressure from the Town, I just want to clarify that? MRS. COHEN-We don't have any option, that is why I am very willing to agree. MR. BURKE-May I ask just one question, would it be possible, not that I don't trust anybody but plans do defer, would it be possible that possibly one of the Town Engineers could look at that site, that facility, and tell us whether or not that could go on that lot number 1? It seems to be an issue here that just doesn't feel good to me. I keep hearing that that lot, that parcel, that facility could not go on lot 1, there is all kinds of restrictions. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I don't think that is something that Town funds could be expended 44 for at this particular moment. If we got into a conflict where the Town was a party to action then perhaps it would be possibility. Even though it is only a couple of dollars, it is something that the Town probably should not get into at this moment. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Perhaps it could be done during a Site Plan Review, at this time I don't think we could do that. MR. BURKE-The only reason I ask that because it is our only salvation for that one home again. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Hearing nothing further, seeing no further comments, I will call this Public Hearing to an end. We will come back to this at the end of the Resolutions and see if there will be any action tonight or postpone it for a time or whatever. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED-8:33 P.M. OPEN FORUM DR. JIM INGALS, Cleverdale-Requested to know whether the Board would consider a resolution in regard to earmarked taxes? Noted that it might be suitable if dock taxes collected from a very limited part of the population here were employed to learn or gather information about lakes or lake problems and to improve the quality of life on, at and around the lakes of Queensbury and the lake properties of Queensbury. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that we do have special districts, lighting districts, and sewage districts, which are designed as a benefit tax districts, those people who derive benefits from those areas have to pay the tax. We have impact fees of a sort in the recreation fee that is already established. Impact fees in general regarding roadways and other public services are still in litigation in the court. What you are proposing is something similar, to Lake George Park Commission, fee per boat, per dock, or per space. I will listen to proposals but there may be other ways through some general town funds, because the town as a whole benefits from the preservation of Lake George, to accomplish what you are thinking of. DR. JIM INGALS-1 would like to have some available source of funds so that when the town really ought to have a $125.00 book on what happens to certain things on Lakes, that there able to get it. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Send your request, we have funds for that. DOROTHY HULL, West Mt. Road-Referred to the Mt. Herman Cemetery, damaged fence. — Noted in the past that it has been promptly fixed and maintained. Questioned why it has not been taken care of? Noted that Mr. Hillis, whose son was buried there, it quite upset. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked the Town Clerk to check into the situation. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that he was present during the Planning Board meeting last Thursday where the Great Escapes Site Plan Review was discussed. Commend our Supervisor for immediately following up with a meeting with Mr. Wood to try and resolve, litigate, mediate the issues. I hope that we can resolve this issue within the next few weeks. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that she was also at that meeting also. If you read the law governing the Planning Board, the New York State Law, the Planning Board has specific terms of office. The Planning Board is also isolated from any political pressures that the Town Board or anyone else in the Town may try to put on them. They are insulated by law, charged with certain duties. I found that the Planning Board tried to interpret a site plan on which they did not have complete information furnished to them by the applicant. I thought that the Planning Department has been very diligently trying to cooperate with the applicant and make them aware of the type of information that was necessary for a complete application. The whole problem seems to be that the papers that were produced was not complete in the information that the Planning Board needed to evaluate this application. I was very proud with the people that represented the Town and how they had conducted themselves. I hope that the applicant will be aware of the fact that the Town has certain rules and regulations. The rules are there for the welfare and protection of the citizens of this town. We hope that they are all administered to fairly and completely and the burden of them fall equally on all the citizens of the Town of Queensbury and the benefits fall equally on the citizens of the Town of Queensbury. I trust that with open minds on both sides, that the work necessary on this site plan review will go through and forward expeditiously. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 8:45 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 253 OF 1988 45 RESOLUTION NO. 256, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 253, a resolution to accept bid on Fuel Oil, be amended to reflect the low bid of Mabb Oil Co. for the Court-Highway Bldg. only for Diesel and Heating Oil in the amount of .6042 for Diesel and .6289 for Heating Oil and be it further RESOLVED, that the bids as accepted in Resolution No. 253 will be awarded to Brian R. Meurs as the low bidder on Water Dept. Maintenance Bldg., Pine View Cemetery, Town Office Bldg., Water Dept. Filtration Plant, Rsby./G.F. Landfill and Qsby. Activity Center with the above low bid being awarded to Mabb Oil Co. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPOINT COMMITTEE MEMBER RESOLUTION NO. 257, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, Sylvia Dougher's term on the Cemetery Commission expires on June 30, 1988, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Dougher has expressed interest in continuing to serve the committee, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Mrs. Sylvia Dougher be reappointed to the Cemetery Commission for a three year term to expire June 30, 1991. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION APPROVING INSTALLATION OF 1,000 GALLON FUEL STORAGE TANK RESOLUTION NO. 258, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, a double walled diesel storage tank at the Meadowbrook Road Pumping Station is necessary, and WHEREAS, Kestner Engineers has received a quotation from H.G. Anderson Equipment Corp., and WHEREAS, H.G. Anderson Equipment Corp., has proposed to install such tank, pour anchoring slab, pipe with copper lines to emergency diesel generator, install containment box on 4" fill with approximately 10' x 4' x 6" pad for the sum of $4,695.00, with time and material extra if rock, water of contaminated soil is encountered, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board agrees to retain H.G. Anderson Equipment Corp. to install said storage tank, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in a letter dated June 6, 1988. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs, Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID 46 RESOLUTION 259, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, Quinten Kestner did recommend that we advertise for bids for repainting 0.5 MG welded steel reservoir, and WHEREAS, eight bids were submitted and received and opened at the specified time and place by the Director of Purchasing/Town Clerk Darleen Dougher, and such bid was then turned over to Mr. Kestner for his recommendation, and WHEREAS, Quentin Kestner, by letter, has recommended that the bid be awarded to the following: Industrial Enterprise Sandblast & Paint, Inc. $42,500 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the recommendation of Quentin Kestner as mentioned above, and be it further RESOLVED, that the financing for such items are in the Water Department 1988 budget. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE TOWN MAPPING FOR PLANNING RESOLUTION NO. 2609 Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, aerial photographs will facilitate general Town planning and operation, and WHEREAS, Kestner Engineers has received a quotation from Lockwood Support Services, Inc., and WHEREAS, Lockwood Support services has proposed to do aerial mapping for a fee of $4,990, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board agrees to retain Lockwood Support Services to provide comprehensive Town mapping for planning and operation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in a letter dated May 9, 1988 from Lockwood Support Services, Inc., and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to sign the agreement set forth in said letter of May 9, 1988. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION RESOLUTION NO. 261, Introduced by the entire Town Board. WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has accepted, with regret, the resignation of Mary Perkett Bertsche as school crossing guard as of June 24, 1988, and WHEREAS, Mary Bertsche served for thirteen years as crossing guard on Aviation Road at Queensbury School, ushering countless Queensbury children in safety across an increasingly busy highway, and WHEREAS, while Mrs. Bertsche recounts fond memories of watching young students grow to adulthood over the years, she will be remembered with great affection, as well, by those who crossed under her watchful eye, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, on behalf of the residents of the Town of Queensbury and 47 especially those families whose children she has carefully watched as they proceeded to and from school, wishes to express its sincerest"Thank You" to Mary Perkett Bertsche for her contribution to the safety of Rueensbury's children. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT RESOLUTION NO. 262, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 247 of June 14, 1988 was previously passed by the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury whereby Rist-Frost would provide certain professional services for the Town of Rueensbury in connection with the completion of the Town Office addition and WHEREAS, Rist-Frost has raised certain objections to certain contract documents referred to in the aforedescribed contract and the Town Attorney has advised that Rist-Frost is correct in its objections and that the contract documents referred to by Rist-Frost should be made a part of the contract instead of the documents presently referred to and WHEREAS, provision referring to Rist-Frost's obligation to defend the Town of Rueensbury in the event of litigation have been objected to and WHEREAS, the contract presented at this meeting is now before the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury for approval, the same to substitute in the place of and instead of the contract previously approved, and WHEREAS, the proposed contract more closely reflects the intended agreement of the parties in so far as it referred to new contract documents and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury has considered the merits of the provisions requiring Rist-Frost to defend the Town in the event of litigation, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed additional contract between the Town of Rueensbury and Rist-Frost is hereby approved in the form presented at this meeting.and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract on behalf of the Town of Rueensbury, and be it further RESOLVED, that the previous resolution passed and approved by the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury authorizing and directing the Town Supervisor to execute a certain contract between Rist-Frost and the Town of Rueensbury, the same herein before referred to, is revoked except that the original considerations made and giving rise to the approval of the original contract are hereby made a part of this resolution and incorporated herein for all purposes. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None _Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO TRANSMIT SEWAGE FROM THE TOWN AND VILLAGE OF LAKE GEORGE RESOLUTION NO. 263, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded -- by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Supervisor and Mayor of the Town and Village of Lake George have indicated that their communities are interested in exploring the concept of a joint effort to transmit sewage to the Glens Falls treatment plant by way of sewage transmission lines established or to be established in the Town of Rueensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town and Village of Lake George must expend sums to study and determine costs, feasibility and routes of such a transmission of sewage through the Town of Rueensbury 4 sewage transmission lines, and WHEREAS, the Town and Village of Lake George have formally requested the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury by letter dated June 17, 1988, to agree in concept to a plan to utilize the Town of Rueensbury sewage transmission lines, and WHEREAS, there is presently no obligation on the part of the Town of Rueensbury to allow the Town and Village of Lake to use the Town of Rueensbury sewage transmission lines established now or to be established in the future, but the Town of Rueensbury is interested in and desires to explore a plan whereby the Town of Rueensbury sewage transmission lines would be used to transmit sewage from the Town and Village of Lake George to the Glens Falls treatment plant, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury hereby indicates its interest in exploring the concept of using the Town of Rueensbury sewage transmission lines to transmit sewage from the Town and Village of Lake George to the Glens Falls treatment plant, and be it further RESOLVED, that this action and resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury is only an indication of an interest in exploring the concept of transmitting sewage over the Town of Rueensbury sewage transmission lines and it is in no manner to be interpreted as an agreement to allow such use; such use of the Town of Rueensbury sewage transmission lines to be the subject of an agreement, the terms of which are to be negotiated at a future date when more information is available on the plan to use the said transmission lines. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that he attended a meeting with Mayor Blaise and Supervisor Lou Tessier where they expressed their interest in sending sewage to the Glens Falls Waste Water Treatment Plant, which they would obviously have to go through Rueensbury. Mentioned to them the current study of sewer in North Rueensbury to them, which they were unaware of. Requested a letter from them expressing their interest and support to look into that study and a study of their own. It would seem to have a stronger position to have municipalities seeking funding for this rather than one. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I like the idea of inter-municipal cooperation. Concerned that we have not heard the engineering report on the study of North Rueensbury, and that might misdirecting Rist Frost that we are not now interested in coming up with some innovated methods of treating this sewage. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that Lake George has indicated their own consultant. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Concerned that the sewage of North Rueensbury might be a large burden on the residents of that area, and the installing of that pipe would be very costly. Noted that we did charge Rist Frost with being innovated with ideas and financing. Concerned with a transmission line to hold that amount of sewage, a very large project. - COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Concerned with the capacity of the Glens Falls Treatment Plant. Noted that there is slot that needs to be weighed here, alot that needs to be work out. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Concerned that when this was initially presented a few years back, it was knocked down. Concerned that we are now at the position to make a commitment to the sewering of Lake George in the Town of Rueensbury and that this may possibly cause some mishap and knock the whole study and project down again. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Noted that this is just to continue our studies, create more possibilities. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that this is an opportunity to share some of the costs. Presents _ an opportunity to express to Albany, 'help save Lake George.' RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH POSITION RESOLUTION NO. 264, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish the position of Confidential Secretary for the Town 419 Attorney for the purpose of providing full-time confidential secretarial support for the Town Attorney, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury hereby establishes the position of Confidential Secretary for the Town Attorney, and be it further RESOLVED, that the annual salary for the Confidential Secretary for the Town Attorney shall be $15,500 for the 1988 year. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs, Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None ibsent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPOINT LEGAL SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. 265, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, the position of Confidential Secretary for the Town Attorney has been established, and WHEREAS, a qualified candidate has been selected, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to appoint Ms. Pamela Mellon to the position of Confidential Secretary for the Town Attorney at an annual salary of $15,500. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR MORATORIUM ON FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS AND SITE PLAN REVIEWS IN EXCESS OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS RESOLUTION NO. 266, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury has experienced significant population growth and residential development during the 19801s, and such growth and development continue to occur at a rapid pace, and WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury wishes to preserve and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens, and such health, safety, and welfare are threatened by a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulation which are not designed to handle the Town's present and future levels of growth and development, and WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury recognizes the need for orderly growth and development, and that such growth and development can only be fostered by adoption of land use master plan and new zoning and subdivision rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury has conducted or is conducting numerous hearings and studies of interest necessary to the preparation and completion of a master plan and new zoning and subdivision rules and regulations, and -- WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury enacted Local Law No. 3 of 1987, a 180 day moratorium of major subdivision and site plan review applications, in order to provide the time needed for preparation and adoption of a master plan and new zoning and subdivision rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury enacted Local Law No. 14, of 1987, a further stay of 120 days, Local Law No. 2 of 1988, a further stay of 126 days and Local Law No. 4 of 1988, a further stay of 30 days, on major subdivision and site plan review applications, in order to provide additional time for preparation and adoption of master plan and new zoning and subdivision rules and regulations, and r0 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is in need of additional time to complete and enact said master plan and related zoning and subdivision rules and regulations, due to a need for time to study the numerous comments received including legal comments from the Warren County Bar Association, and such further stay is necessary to preserve and protect the health, safety, and general welfare to the citizens of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held on the annexed proposed local law which, if enacted, shall stay the filing of applications for major subdivisions and site plan reviews in excess of four dwelling units for an additional period of 62 days, and that said public hearing be held on July 12, 1988 at 4:00 P.M., in the Town of Queensbury, Town Hall, Queensbury New York, at which time all persons interested in the subject thereof shall be heard, and BE IT FURTHER _ RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be, and hereby is directed to publish all such notice of said public hearing as is required by law. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka LOCAL LAW NO. 5 LOCAL LAW TO STAY FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS AND/OR SITE PLAN REVIEW IN EXCESS OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS Section 1. Legislative Intent. This law is adopted in order to stay the application procedure for major subdivisions and site plan reviews in excess of four units under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, New York, enacted May 25, 1982, as amended from time to time, the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, enacted July 13, 1982, as amended from time to time, and Sections 274-a and 276 of the New York Town Law, as amended. "Ihe moratorii#ifl; *Mc,�voids ail u'n7aWfuq'1� file p fi6afion3 AM disables all persons form filing or causing to be filed such applications, is cf..temporary duration. The Legislation is enacted _eu in order to continue the stays of Local Law No. 3 of 1987, adopted April 29, 1987, and Local Law No. 14 of 1987, adopted October 23, 1987, Local Law No. 2 of 1988 effective February 25, 1988, and Local Law No. 4 of 1988 effective June 30, 1988. The additional moratorium period is needed in order to preserve and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Queensbury, by allowing the Town such additional time as is needed to prepare, complete, secure approvals, hold public hearings on, and enact such land use master plan and zoning and subdivision rules and regulations as needed to provide for orderly growth and development of the Town. Section 2. Authority. This local law is enacted pursuant to Section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York. Section 3. Prohibitions. No person shall file or cause to be filed, within 62 days after the effective date hereof, an application or applications for approval for major subdivision or site plan review in excess of four dwelling units. Any such application filed in violation of this section shall be void. No approval by operation of law shall result by the filing of an application in violation of this section. This provision shall not be waived. Section 4. Exceptions. This local law shall not apply to or affect applications for approval for Planned Unit Development, major subdivision, or site plan review in excess of four dwelling units where such completed applications have been filed with the appropriate Town Official prior to April 28, 1987. Section 5. Effective Date. This local law shall take effect on July 30, 1988. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR MORATORIUM RESOLUTION NO. 267, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and 51. WHEREAS, such act requires environmental review of certain actions directly undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider the adoption of the local law providing for a stay of 62 days on the filing of applications for major subdivisions and site plan review in excess of four dwelling units, and WHEREAS, the anticipated impacts of such proposal local law are primarily of local significance, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified as lead agency with respect to the enactment of the above described local legislation, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT tESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby designated lead agency for purposes of SERRA compliance in the adoption of a Master Plan and legislative amendments to the existing subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be fowarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Region 5 Offices of the D.E.C., Department of Health, Department of Transportation, Warren County Planning Department, Lake George Park Commission, and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO. 268, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. _. WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is presently installing sewer lines in furtherance of the establishment of a sewer district in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, in furtherance of establishing said sewer district it is necessary for sewer lines to cross certain property owned by Florence Gallagher and described as follows: Sect. 60, Block'2, Lot 8 on the Warren County Tax Map for the Town of Queensbury, and said property is also described in a deed recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office in Book # 700 of Deeds at Page 1, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to place sewer lines in the aforedescribed property as the Town of Queensbury to unable to route sewer line within the bounds of Cronin Road as it crosses Halfway Brook and the Brook crossing cannot be made on the southerlyside of Cronin Road and WHEREAS, it is necessary to take immediate action to avoid construction delays and claims by the contractor and WHEREAS, the acquisition and use of the said property would be de minimus in nature and after installation of the sewer line the property would be restored to the condition it was in >rior to the entry by the town except, of course, that a sewer line and permanent sewer line easement would be in place NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is authorized to negotiate with the owners of said property with respect to the compensation, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney representing the Town in this matter, Mr. Wilson Mathias is authorized to commerce condemnation proceedings and proceedings for immediate acquisition in the event the same are necessary. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos 52 Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT-HOVEY POND RESOLUTION NO. 269, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town of Rueensbury is working toward the establishment of a passive Recreational Park and WHEREAS, Morse Engineering has offered to survey, draft, engineer and coordinate construction _ for the Hovey Pond project in accordance with the terms outlined in a letter dated May 18, 1988 by Morse Engineering, a copy of the same is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Certificates of Insurance must be presented to the Town Supervisor of the Town of Rueensbury in the amounts of $250,000 for Professional Liability and One Million for general liability and comprehensive insurance coverage for each occurrence, and RESOLVED, that the Supervisor for the Town of Rueensbury is hereby authorized to execute a copy of the letter dated May 18, 1988 from Morse Engineering and arrange for payment of the services performed and to be performed by said Morse Engineering. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka COMMUNICATIONS Supervisor-received verbal request to lower speed limit on Quaker Road RESOLUTION REQUESTING FEASIBILITY STUDY TO REVIEW SPEED LIMIT RESOLUTION NO. 270, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor for the Town of Queensbury has had numerous requests to lower the existing speed limit on Quaker Road, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be authorized to send the proper form to the Department of Transportation through the Warren County D.P.W. requesting that the speed limit be lowered on Quaker Road from Route 9 to Warren Street. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE RESOLUTION NO. 271, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. (Councilman Montesi made a motion to approve with certain adjustments and recommendations, the Board held discussion) DISCUSSION SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted at this point we have very little if any power to dictate any terms or conditions over the use, because this is a single family residence in a permitted zone. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Mr. Dusek, what are the three clarifications as to why we could 53 object to this resolution? COUNSEL DUSEK-Noted, as previously stated, one reason with two parts, the result in the concentration of these facilities and the result of a change in character. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Commend the Burkes for their presentation. Expresses her hope to please both parties. Questioned why CP can not use just the 2.4 acres for their facility and recreation area? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We are constrained by the law. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would like to see them move the home, screen the property, and aromise not to build another facility on that property. Would like to see a written agreement from the Board of Directors before voting on this. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It seems to me that the architect, Mr. Cushing had agreed to move 'ie building as far as possible to the center, and that Mrs. Cohen had expressed that she would agree to the limit of one home on that site, that 4 acre parcel. With the understanding that it would be supported by a resolution by the Board of Directors of the organization. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Reviewed the status of the property noting that a large section as it is now proposed will remain forever wild, a park like setting...noted that there will only be one house placed on the lot...I do not see where the detriment will be...If I felt in my heart that this was messing up the neighborhood I would not be voting for this. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If we do not rush this we will get assurances from CP in writing that will further protect the unique character of that area. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I do not want the Burke's to think that by not voting on this tonight that they will get a change on this. Let me summarize the concerns of the Town Board, Is it the intention of CP to deed lots, to make two into one? MALCOLM OHARA-Yes COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I want a commitment from the Board of Directors of CP that one building will go on this land and the building after consulting with Paul Cushing it will be moved from the direction of the Burke's. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-And they will have to screen so that no light will penetrate through the trees... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is the lighting to be high security or not? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Are those concerns resolvable with the Board Members? MALCOLM OHARA-I think they are resolvable with out Board. Reviewed the actions that the Board can object too. Spoke to the Board on legal action that CP could take against the Town Board if the Board did not follow the law. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As a lawyer of the law firm representing CP 1 think you have just threaten the Town Board I do not like to be threatened, either as an individual or as a member of the Town Board. PAUL DUSEK-Mr. O'Hara has taken a different point of view with you as to what this Board is doing it appears to me that this record will reflect that they are in fact considering the grounds on which we have a lawful right to reject this facility in the community that is really what is at issue here. The Board has indicated to you that with the thought that it is not necessary to proceed down the road toward confrontation, perhaps this matter may be resolved by all ,)arties to reach a mutual agreement. When two parties are in a confrontational situation, almost anything is possible to be agreed to, including things that were not originally contemplated under the law. I would like to indicate to the Board that I don't think that that approach is totally out of line. I do think it can be explored. I have already stated my opinion on what the law is, and I think the Board is reacting to the opinion I gave them. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think we have all agreed that legally we can not say no, I think we all agree that we want to say yes, but we want to see some things in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I think you would have the support of this Board if we had something in writing, so that your Board understands our concerns and we have some assurances for the neighbors. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Perhaps we could get your full assurance. ...._._.._._. ._. 5 MAL O'HARA-I would not object to that, I would not object to an approval tonight with the condition on our Boards agreement not to construct an additional facility on the premises, and our Board's instruction to our architect to review the plans, to move the structure as far as he deems, judges possible from the neighbors. I would like to move forward on this project, we are running out of time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Once you condition something, you can lose some of your position. The better position would be to table this until we have the written agreement from their Board. Would there be an objection, to getting a resolution from the Board of Directors, in writing, tabling this and have a special meeting before the end of this week. RESOLUTION TO TABLE RES. NO. 271 OF 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 272, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby tables Resolution No. 271 of 1988. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. O'Hara can arrange for a meeting tomorrow, and if you can contact Mr. Dusek as soon as you know, we will immediately, within 24 hours, hold a special Board meeting and approve it. That will be the end and we will get the Burke's their protection and CP will be able to go ahead with their project. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 273, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby move into Executive Session to discuss litigation and personnel matters. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 274, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that Special Audit of Bills as appears on abstract June (1988) and numbered 1502-1504 and 1506-1507 and totaling 416,196.35 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka No action was taken, on motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY