1987-01-13 � S
TOWN BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1987
7:30 P.M.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
Mrs. Frances Walter-Supervisor
Mr. George Kurosaka-Councilman
Mr. Ronald Montesi -Councilman
- Mrs. Betty Monahan -Councilman
Mr. Stephen Borgos -Councilman-Absent
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY - Councilman Kurosaka
TOWN COUNSEL-Wilson Mathias
PRESS-Post Star, WWSC
TOWN OFFICIALS-Stuart Mesinger,
7: 34 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING-AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 23-NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR WALTER-The first order of business is a Public Hearing relative to a proposed
amendment to Ordinance 23, over 65 years of age exemption. Section 2 is dealing with the
income of the owner or the combined income of the owners which must not exceed $10,500
for the income tax year and immediately proceeding the date of making the application for
exemption. Income tax year shall mean the twelve month period for which the owner or owners
filed a federal personal income tax return or if no such return is filed the calendar year.
We are raising this exemption, we currently use an exemption at $8,700.00. Asked for public
input-no one spoke-stated that the Public Hearing will be held open for a while to see if anyone
comes into speak.
f
I SECOND PUBLIC HEARING-7:40 P.M.- NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR WALTER-The second Public Hearing is the proposed designation of Rush Pond
as a critical area of environmental concern. The Town Board has been looking at several
areas in Queensbury and are proposing to designate them as critical areas to our environment
and that we wish to handle them with a better look as far as development is concerned.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The concern of the Town Board is that Rush Pond and its contributing
streams flow into it are connected to the head waters of Glen Lake. What you see as you
drive South on the Northway to the left is the Great Escape to the right is the body of water
which is called Rush Pond. Unfortunately there are three large beaver dams on the pond and
one of them is blocking the culvert that runs under the Northway, the State of New York
has jurisdiction over whether or not those dams stay or go. The ridge that surrounds this pond
is 435 ft. elevation on the geographic map and by designating this area as critical area we
hope to protect the pure waters of Glen Lake. That doesn't mean that a developer cannot
use the land adjacent to the pond, it just means that he will have to go through an Environmental
Impact Statement by the Town Board to show that whatever he is doing there will not have
any detrimental effect on the environment.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for public comment?
MARK BOMBARD-D. L. Dickinson Associates, Lake George, Asked how they determined
_ the 430 feet? How could you tell where the line was?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I couldn't tell where the line was I could only visually look and
walk the ridge line and try to follow the elevation line on the map.
MARK BOMBARD-The paper said 500 feet outside...asked if the 430 contour line was also
going to be considered, it can't be developed?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Probably won't be but this is not really saying it can't be. What
we are saying is that when you come forth with a subdivision, an Environmental Impact Statement,
will have to be done.
MARK BOMBARD-The Leland Park would be on the West of it and goes against West Mountain
16
Road but our property stops at about 500 so we are 500 feet away from the pond and 70 feet
above it, so I don't see much trouble.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-You are probably well above it and unless you encroach on the
500 feet, then it will be in the Environmental Impact Statement anyway.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further comments, none were heard, I will leave this Public
Hearing open.
THIRD PUBLIC HEARING-AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 15 PUD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SHOWN
SUPERVISOR WALTER-This Public Hearing is an amendment to Article 15, which is a Planned
Unit Development Article...This is the second Public Hearing we have had on this particular
article. The Town Board has made some changes in the wording and felt that they were sufficient
to have another Public Hearing. Asked for public comment?
BILL RALSTON-Krolick and DeGraff, Albany, New York...We represent Lake George Venture,
Inc. the owner of the Top of the World Resort Community, which is an existing planned unit
development in the Town of Queensbury. There are two areas of concern in reviewing the
proposed amendments, which I outlined in a letter this morning to Mrs. Walter. The first
being the applicability of the new Ordinance to existing PUD's. I understand that the Top
of the World is the only approved planned unit development in the Town of Queensbury at
this time so I speak specifically about that. We feel and confirmed by Wilson Mathias, Town
Counsel in a telephone conversation with me, that the substitutes provisions of the amendment
of the new Ordinance with requirements of new PUDS, should not be applicable in subsequent
site plan approval for subsequent phases at the Top of The World, because the original resolution
which approved that PUD, granted the developer certain rights to build certain amenities
and one specific one we know is not consistent with the proposed amendment, in the amount
of commercial space allowed in a new PUD. For example...there was a restaurant approved
as part of the original ordinance of approximately 10 to 11 thousand square feet which would
be deemed commercial space within the PUD, your new amendment only allows 2400 square
feet per 100 units which would essentially restrict them to 2400 square feet. I don't know
if the amendment is silent as to its appicability with respect to existing PUD and I want to
know what the Town Boards' intent is, in regard to that issue? There is a second aspect of
the amendment we would also like to address which is also outlined in the letter...this is the
lack of any provisions for changes to a final site plan approval. The way it is set up you go
through the preliminary site plan approval process, then your building permit is issued which
is the point where the developer goes out into the field and actually starts the construction
and various conditions could mandate changes in location of buildings, drainage and roads...
the amendment is silent to what happens if the developer needs to make changes in his final
plan. This situation occurred in the construction of Phase I at the Top of the World and was
the reason we came before the Board in July 1986 for approval of changes in the final site
plan that was mandated by site conditions. Dennis Mr. McElroy, the engineer at the Top
of the World, is here and asked if he would give specific details from the engineering stand
point as to the type of changes that would be required.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that the first issue is whether the amendment is binding on
PUD already underway and if that was answered negative then you wouldn't be concerned
about the next one. Because what we are requiring now in the new PUD amendment is a great
deal more up front work where perhaps getting into a site location you wouldn't be finding
these things you would have known about these long before.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Referred to Article 15, Section .085 which says, prepared detail
final site plan submitted to the Planning Board approval, except if there is more than 12
months left in the time of the Planning Board report on preliminary site plan and the Planning
Board finds it changed significantly, the Planning Board may require resubmittal, it doesn't
say anything about a Public Hearing. The Public Hearing usually goes with the preliminary,
and the final approval, just to clean up the details.
BILL RALSTON-I refer to that Section...if the final site plan is not completed in the twelve
months according to the preliminary site plan approval, it requires the developer to go back
to the preliminary site plan approval. Our concern is when final approval is granted and the
building permit issued,the developer goes down on the site and finds field conditions that
require a change in the final approval...it is my understanding that that Section would not
be appropriate.
DENNIS MCELROY-Environmental Design Partnership, I think Bill's letter clearly states
the condition we ran across during Phase I. Once final approval is obtained the contractor
or developer then gets into the construction phase of the project, and he recognizes at that
point there might be certain site conditions that warrant changes of locations of buildings,
as we ran across before in phase I, possibly changes of road locations, that type of thing which
through field investigation that you go across to develop the preliminary site plan, you really
don't have that type of information you need to make you aware of the changes that would
occur. As Bill has pointed out in Article 15 as it exist, really doesn't address the conditions
of changes. When we came to you in July, we were dealing with changes related to Phase
I, there really wasn't a vehicle, except to come back to the Town Board at that time and
the new Article 15 doesn't seem to address that issue and as you say...if the new Ordinance
doesn't apply to the Top of the World, well then maybe we don't have to deal with that issue
but other developers within PUDs that come along will have to face that situation and the
proposed Article 15 really doesn't address that, at this time.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-We might be able to set this up as a procedure of the Planning
Board.
BILL BENTON-Lake George Ventures, as a developer we have developed in many other areas
and have come upon PUDs and have used them, what Dennis has brought out and for your
consideration is, if condition one is answered one way for us and it solves our problem, but
I still think we would like to make a general comment that in our experience, what we have
found is that the idea of the change is important. As a developer looking into an area if we
went through the entire process and got final approval and then we went to put this into action...we
are going to run into changes all the time, it is the nature of the beast...then to have to come
back an administrative vehicle might be burdensome to both parties, it would be looked at
one way by the developer as not being the most favorable condition. Some vehicle has to
be set up to allow that developer as he actually starts to execute his final approved plan,
site conditions, as they come up can be addressed and minor changes made, it does not exclude
the fact that there is going to be a major change where you might require more in-depth
but there has to be a cut off point and some other vehicle should be looked at to take care
the site conditions.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Most of the things you are addressing tonight regarding the Top
of The World don't come close to bordering on a zoning change and noted that only if it were
changing the zoning would it have to go back to the Planning Board.
BILL BENTON-Referred to their Vermont operations which has all three classifications, residential,
office and commercial and here again if it is a major change in the initial intent then it should
come back and be reviewed but the daily executing of the final approved plan you are going
to run into things that have to be changed that have to be addressed on the site.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that what they really want is to be able to address the Planning
Board and not start over.
BILL BENTON-Yes that is right and that way it makes life easier for everyone.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further input?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-No one answered whether it is applicable to the Top of the World
or not.
TOWN COUNSEL-It is clear that it is not applicable to them. My comments are to the substance
of the nature and that is what Mr. Ralston's letter addresses. They are approved for a certain
number of units and a certain type of use and that is not going to be affected by this provision.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked if some type of wording could be put in to cover minor changes
going back to the Planning Board and not at Public Hearing.
TOWN COUNSEL-The intent of this drafts is...to me, there is tension between what the
developer wants, and not to characterize the Top Of The World, but there are two sides here
and one says give us some flexibility because we are building this thing and we want to move
things around, the Town Board on the other hand says look we gave approval based on your
statement that you were going to build these units and place them in these locations and
clearly, if there is a real change between those two things you've got a legislative act that
doesn't mean much. One of the changes in this new ordinance from the old one is the detail
requirements of information that the developer has to submit to the town with a lot more
information and by providing that information and having it you reduce the possibility of
some of these unforeseen site conditions that are going to have an impact on the changes.
There has got to be a relationship between what information has been given and what exist
on the ground. We can provide a legislative scheme that sets up the envelope kind of approval
we had, when we dealt with the Top of The World and that could be provided for any developer.
This isn't included basically because I felt the information and the process that was already
18
required makes it a lot less likely that these type of changes were going to occur.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Some of them are unavoidable...I think that the envelope method
used for the Top of The World is the most sensible. Noted that he agreed with Counsel to
leave the Ordinance as it is.
DENNIS MCELROY-We recognize that in our approach when we prepare the preliminary
site plan as required by Article 15, we will be submitting the new one and the information
that is required in Section 15.083...there are five items of information that are required for
submittal of the preliminary plan...our plans will include that information. We are prepared
to submit those to the Planning Commission at the end of January or February. We have included
on our site plans the envelope for the building zoned which we used to take care of the changes
in phase I so we have taken in that step. The proposed step and I suppose in the review of u
the preliminary site plan, the Planning Commission would approve that idea for the most
part, take care of those changes that might occur during construction...that envelope concept.
That procedure isn't necessarily addressed...we used in Phase I, we will use it on Phase II.
I would have to reinforce the fact that those changes that occur are going trb come up regardless
of the conditional detail you have asked for in this Article 15. That is not going to solve all
the problems or avoid the changes that are going to come up in construction...you might hit
ledge in an area and you have to move the building slightly about ten feet, but even that ten
feet will change under that original Article 15.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked how many feet was presented on the original Envelope rule?
DENNIS MCELROY-I believe it was fifty feet outside the building blueprints.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Disagreed with the fifty feet and objected to giving a blank check.
BILL BENTON- You still have to establish some sort of envelope system, the size of the house...and
fifty foot one way or the other is not a lot.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Fifty is considerable...if you have a forty foot building and
you move it out of fifty feet, you are moving it out of its foundation.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-For the public's information, the envelope system we are talking
about still needs the approval of the Planning Board.
DENNIS MCELROY-I understand that would be approved on the preliminary site plan approval,
and on the final site plan approval, the envelope would be approved and the movement could
occur within that zone so that when you are in construction...if that mov�ment within that
zone is necessary, that can happen without getting any further approval. Asked for one point
of clarification referring to the parts of substantive parts of Article 15, when we go to site
plan approval to the Planning Commission, should we be adhering to the requirements of new
Article 15, so I can supply that to Stuart when we submit?
STUART MESINGER-Yes, with that type of information, I would assume it would be gathered
from the SGS mapping.
8:15 P. M.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED-regarding PUD
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Reopened Hearing on Over 65 Exemption-Asked for input, no one
spoke, the Public Hearing was Closed.
...Reopened Hearing on Rush Pond Designation as Critical Area, asked for input, no one spoke,
Public Hearing Closed. !
OLD BUSINESS
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted there was some old busine1s reg,4ding the Town Board acting
as Board of Health relative to a sewage variance to Jerome Bonnabeanx and we are waiting
for further information from this applicant, he by telephone today, indicated that he was
unable to have a meeting with the concerned individuals and therefore he had nothing to present
to the Board this evening.
OPEN FORUM
PAUL DAVIDSON-Pickle Hill Road, Questioned the use of a garage accross the street being
used as a mechanical garage, machine shop and developing into a junk yard, how can be be
allowed to expand these operations under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance?
t ,
SUPERVISOR WALTER-The situation you are referring to was left with our Town Attorney.
TOWN COUNSEL-It was something that was turned over to me and it appears that we are
not going to be able to fashion a compromise without some type of legal action and I am in
the process of preparing the necessary papers to get something going.
PAUL DAVIDSON-Asked if legal action was going to be taken? Noted that his investment
has already decreased in thousands. Thats why we are keeping track of what is happening.
TOWN COUNSEL-Yes.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that since it had been brought to her attention, she has
pushed for some action. I am not happy with the way the application was done and I think
it should have been stopped right there.
MR. INGLES-Cleverdale, presented the Board with filters taken from his water off the shoreline,
showing how they are discolored when they are taken out of the water, and they are chalk
white when they are put in. The water used to be colorless and transparent as a window pane,
now you are standing in brown gue what used to be bare rocks. My idea of political concept
of home rule is that the people who live in an area have a right to control the destiny of the
area and I believe that give you the authority to investigate the nature, distribution and cause
and cure of the sediments in Warren Bay, Sandy Bay, Harris Bay and around the point.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Asked if the water burned his eyes when he put his head under
water?
MR. INGLES-No
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Asked, you can't see the bottom of the lake now?
MR. INGLES-There should be a layer at the top and a layer at the bottom and it should be
clear inbetween and the stuff now is not that way, it is distributed all the way from the top
to the bottom. We need an explanation of what is hanging in there, possibly it is detergent
gas because the gasoline is not on top of water anymore.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Did you have these all descended at the same level in the water?
MR. INGLES-No, these are actually out of my house water line, these are my filters.
This is after the storage tank, after a 100 mess screen.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-I appreciate your bringing this to our attention and if we feel that
it is something that our town should be doing and not the Department of Environmental Conservation
or the Health Department we will respond to you. At present the Town does not have anyone
who is capable of looking into and analyzing this particular situation. We would have to retain
some professional to look into it and that would be a project that we would have to take some
care in choosing. Our best effort should be put forth to see what agency now is capable of
doing it. There is a great deal of effort on the part of the Lake George affairs Committee
at Warren County looking into the quality of the water and the Supervisors from the Lake
have on different occasions have brought up these kinds of things...what is happening on
the beaches in their respect to the community.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Let me check with the DEC on this.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Ref erred to Ciba Geigy leaving the area and as Town Board Members,
are close to the problem and give our support to anyone who needs their help.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
I RESOLUTION NO. 26, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Betty Monahan.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of December 30th, 1986 be and hereby are approved.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
n..n
Absent: Mr. Borgos
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO. 27, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mr. George Kurosaka.
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to expand recreation facilities on Town owned land,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board retain the LA Group, p.c. for professional services to design I
two park sites (Ridge Road and Gurney Lane) not to exceed $36,000. (two project cost), and
be it further
RESOLVED, that the Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute a contract with the LA Partnersh.
for design services in a form approved by Town Counsel.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
DISCUSSION
SUPERVISOR WALTER-The services would be $18,000.00 designed for Ridge Road site, 80
acres and approximately 110 acres of designed services at Gurney Lane, also $18,000.00.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY FOR REVIEW OF MINING PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR OPERATION OF BIG BAY FACILITY
RESOLUTION 28, Introduced by Mrs. Frances Walter, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mr. Ronald Montesi. I
WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, such act requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local
governments, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, through its highway department operates a sandpit at
the intersection of Big Bay Road and Wells Road, which sandpit is located on a 7.77 acre
parcel of land, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury operates a facility for the mining of approximately 3000
to 4000 yards of sand to be utilized in winter road cleaning operations, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Department refills the mined area with the
residue of sand cleaned from the highways in the season following the winter road clearing
operations, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is required to complete a mining permit application and
file the same with the Department of Environmental Conservation, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the Department of Environmental
Conservation have agreed that the potential impacts, if any, from the said mining operation
are of primarily local significance, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is best qualified as lead agency to
review the local impacts, if any, from the operations at the Big Bay sandpit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Baord of the Town of Queensbury is hereby designated lead agency
for purposes of SEQRA compliance for review of the mining permit application for the operation
of the Town of Queensbury facilities at Big Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, and be it further
RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department
21
of Environmental Conservation and the Region 5 Offices of the D.E.C., Department of Transportation
and the Warren County Planning Department.
Duly adopted the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
DISCUSSION:
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that this has to do with a requirement from Encon that any
kind of mining done in the Town does have to have a permit.
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 23 EXEMPTING RESIDENTS
OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE.
RESOLUTION NO,29, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, the Town Board 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 of Queensbury by Local Ordinance No. 23 provides for a 50% exemption
from Town Taxes for owners 65 years of age and older whose income does not exceed $8,750.
per year, and
WHEREAS, a proposal to amend Ordinance No. 23, a copy of which is hereto annexed, has
been prepared and presented for consideration by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
4 to increase the income limitation for those eligible for such exemption, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the specified time and place and all interested
parties were heard on the proposed amendment to the Queensbury Ordinance 23, NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT
_! RESOLVED, that the following amendment be added to the Queensbury Ordinance Number
23:
SECTION Z.
(b) The income of the owner or combined income of the owners must not exceed Ten
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars for the income tax year immediately preceeding the
date of making the application for exemption. Income tax year shall mean the Twelve
month period for which the owner or owners filed a federal personal income tax return,
or if no such return is filed, the calendar year.
SECTION 3:
This amendment shall take effect as provided by Town Law.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
L.
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
DISCUSSION:
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Our second public hearing was the proposed designation of Rush Pond
and we do have scheduled another public hearing to comply with the law set for our next
meeting, January 27. Our third public hearing was to amend Article 15 of the Planned Unit
Development, the Zoning Ordinance.
TOWN COUNSEL-Noted that the comments heard in connection with the envelope method
CPO
have some merit and the Ordinance as written would not prohibit that type of submission
and it may be that anyone putting forward a project might be well to use that kind of concept.
Noted that there might need to be some other changes in this Ordinance or the Town Board
might be considering some changes in the Zoning Ordinance itself, and as we learn to see
how this pans out in actual operation, the suggestion was made it could be adopted at some
later time.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked if we have gotten ahead of ourselves...should there not be
some kind of SEQRA resolution before the passage of this?
TOWN COUNSEL-Yes, there are actually two conditions...one, the APA has some authority
over the effective date of this ordinance. We have submitted a copy of the proposal for their
review, and also a copy to the Warren County Planning Board and have received their comments.
The Town Board should adopt a resolution designating itself Lead Agency for the purpose
of SEQRA and secondly, it is resolved that the Town Board resolve to make a declaration
that any PUD that is going to come in is going to have to comply with SEQRA and it is going
to have the specific requirements in certain instances of an environmental impact statement,
so it will be taken care of as each particular project comes before the board.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO. 30, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mr. George Kurosaka.
RESOLUTION forthcoming from Town Counsel, to be found on page
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENT TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE,
PUD
I
RESOLUTION NO. 31, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Betty Monahan:
RESOLUTION forthcoming from Town Counsel, to be found on page
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
CORRESPONDENCE
-Ltr., Re: Speed limit on Tuthill from J.W. Kelly, Regional Traffic Engineer, on file
-Ltr., Re: Ordering Countywide Confinement of Dogs for Protection of Deer, from Warren
County Board of Supervisors, Harold E. Robillard, Clerk, on file.
-Ltr., Re: Sketch Plan Approval for Phase III. from Stuart Mesinger, on file.
STUART MESINGER-This is fairly important and Mr. Borgos asked me to make some changes
to make it clear that 50 is not an absolute number and that we are really talking about how
the roads are laid out and also I have concerns about telling a developer that he can't submit
a sketch plan until he is 60 percent through his previous phase. I will strike that phrase, and
say that before you get the final approval for any project you have got to be 60% through
your final phase. Referring to projects with less that 50 units,noted there is a different
mechanism in our ordinance and the problem there is if we have a proposed 1500 or 1200 unit
PUD, the Planning Board doesn't want to look at them a dozen times.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Asked what happens if it is just 50 lots, what do you do with
master planning in a large development?
23
STUART MESINGER-It should say preliminary because the intent is to allow someone to get
a sketch plan approval for the master plan, this gives a lot more control over it.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Asked if they were going to restrict the developer to 60%, what
if they sold 80% of the lots and only developed 40% of them?
STUART MESINGER-The intent would be for him to have built up to a certain extent of that
subdivision before they come in for the next phase. It puts the developer into a lot more
control of a subdivision.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that if the changes were in the wording of the amendment
then there would be no question that this is what we require.
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
RESOLUTION NO.32, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to amend the Subdivision Regulations as recommended
by Stuart Mesinger, Town Planner,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held on Tuesday, January 27th, 1987 at the Town Office
Building, Bay at Haviland Roads, Queensbury, New York to consider an addition to the Queensbury
to the Subdivisions Regulations as follows:
ARTICLE III SECTION 10 PHASING
Approvals for Major Subdivisions shall be phased. Approximately 50 dwelling units shall be
the most that may be approved in any phase. The Planning Board shall consider the layout
of roads, water lines, drainage facilities and other pertinent facts in determining the exact
phasing sequence and number of dwelling units in each phase. Subsequent phases of a project
shall not be granted final approval until 60% of the dwelling units in the previous phase are
under construction or completed. This Section shall not apply to Planned Unit Developments
which have an approved staging plan under Article 15 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance,
nor shall it apply to subdivisions of less than 50 dwelling units.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
DISCUSSION HELD
TOWN COUNSEL-We have got to be a little more definite about this language that talks
about generally approval for approximately 50 feet. It should be so everyone knows what
the rule of the game is...as opposed to each applicant coming in and saying whatever it is
it doesn't apply to me.
STUART MESINGER-I want to make sure there is flexiblility there...just by saying there
is approvals for approximately 50 dwelling units shall be approved in any phase, and strike
the generally.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Its a matter of judgement, if a developer is only going to have
60 units and that is the most he can get out of the property, you wouldn't want to make him
stick to 50 lots.
i
STUART MESINGER-Stated that he could do it in two smaller phases as two 30's.
-Ltr., Re: rezoning a portion of the west side of Bay Road from UR-5 to HC-15 from
Stuart Mesinger, Town Planner, on file.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-We did send this to the Planning Board for their consideration and
it was brought to my attention that the Town Board had informally determined that the Town
Planner should take a look at re-zoning in our Town. Asked for the Board's opinion?
24
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-My only opinion is that back five or six years ago, we thought this
was an area that should be rezoned after we reviewed it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would like to see all the Town reviewed and this be incorporated
as one of them.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Asked if Stuart wanted to look at the whole town.
STUART MESINGER-Looking at the whole town is a big task, whether or not the Board wants
this as a matter of policy to tell everybody who wants to rezone to wait until that bigger
look is done is up to the Board, but as far as this proposal is concerned, these two parcels
in question should be developed commercial because they would be incapatible as residential.
REPRESENTATIVE OF WOODBURY-The entire parcel purchased is fifteen acres and the
zoning boundary falls almost in the middle of the first five acres of our property.
Noted that it is the acreage between Dr. Westcott and Evelyns' Flower Shop that needs to
be rezoned.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Referring to the memo and map presented by Stuart Mesinger, noted
that lots 29 and 30 could be included in a rezoned commercial but asked what happens to
lot 31.
STUART MESINGER-It would be up to the residents.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-If they set a public hearing all the lots should be included.
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING OF BAY ROAD
RESOLUTION NO.33, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mr. Ronald Montesi.
Resolution forthcoming from Town Counsel.
Duly adopted by the following vote
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
BID OPENING
One Ton Cab & Chassis-Highway Dept., Bid Opening January 13, 1987 at 2:00 P.M.
Queensbury Motors-Queensbury, N.Y., Non-Collusive attached $16,500.00
Dave Ball Chevelet-Syracuse, N.Y., Non-Collusive attached $14,325.07
Ron Kuba Ford Mercury Inc., Comstock, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $16,574.00
Latham Ford, Latham, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $17,085.00
-Ltr. Highway Supt. (on file) recommended that Ron Kuba receive the bid.
DISCUSSION HELD
Awarding bid will be held at a future Board Meeting...Town Board waiting for further information
from Highway Superintendent.
1978 One Ton Dump Truck-Pine View Cemetery, Bid Opening January 13, 1987 at 2:00 P.M.
Queensbury Motors, Queensbury, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $19,995.00 without trade
$14,995.00 with trade
Dave Ball Chev., Syracuse, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $18,381.29 without trade
$15,981.29 with trade
Ron Kuba Ford Mercury, Inc. Comstock, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $20,069.00
without trade
$15,469.00 with trade
tiS
Orange Motors, Latham, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $20,816.23 without trade
$18,616.23 with trade
Latham Ford, Latham, N.Y. Non-Collusive attached $22,659.00 without trade
$17,659.00 with trade
DISCUSSION HELD
Awarding bid will be held at a future Town Board Meeting, awaiting recommendation from
Pine View Superintendent.
{s
Ltr-of resignation received by Supervisor, Frances Walter from Betty Little.
SUPERVISOR WALTER-The vice chairman will act as the chairman until they have their
meeting, so we have a vacancy on the Recreation Committee. We will be looking for someone
from the Town of Queensbury to sit on that Committee.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
RESOLUTION NO.34, Introduced by the Entire Town Board
Whereas, Mrs. Betty Little, has served as a member of the Queensbury Recreation Commission
since January 12, 1982 and its Chairman since April 25, 1983, and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Betty Little in her years of service enhanced the lives of many of the residents
through her impressive work on this Commission, and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Betty Little has now moved on to be a member of the Warren County Board
of Supervisors,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to thank Mrs. Little
for her many hours of services to the Residents of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
RESOLUTION OF SORROW
RESOLUTION NO.35, Introduced by the Entire Town Board
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury in the month of January 1987 lost one of its beloved residents,
Mrs. Geraldine Eddy, wife of Robert Eddy, Chairman of the Beautification Committee of
the Town of Queensbury,
Now, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to extend to Mr. Robert Eddy
and daughters their deepest sympathy in this time of sorrow.
m�
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr.Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
i
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
REPORTS
Town Clerk, Building & Code Enforcement, Receiver of Taxes & Assessments, and Queensbury
26
-Glens Falls Joint Landfill, and Queensbury Town Historian annual reports for 1986 on file.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO.36, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mr. Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on January 13, 1987, Abstract and numbered 1-118
and totaling $114,727.41. be and hereby are approved and be it further
RESOLVED, that voucher 4, in the amount of $1,472.00 and voucher 83 in the amount of $36,526.00
have been pulled for further information regarding the paper work.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr.Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Borgos
SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked relative to a lease agreement do we act on that as a Town
Board...stated that she had a lease agreement from the Highway Department for a loader.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Said yes, we have to set a resolution to OK the leases.
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Noted that a question came up that Northern Homes have a
trailer on the site, using it for draftsmen work and using it as a job trailer and the Building
Inspector wants guidance whether to consider that an office site?
SUPERVISOR WALTER-How long temporary would be?
COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-About two months.
ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED 1
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK